Perfect Playoff Bracket

[Brandon]

Those Northern Colorado teams were beasts during their run.

They were. The NCC was great.

[Ram040506]

Make it 8 regions and expand to 32 teams where four teams make the playoffs in each region for the first two rounds.

Region 1 - Pee Sack and NE 10.
Region 2 - GMAC and MEC
Region 3- CIAA and SAC
Region 4 - GSC and SIAC
Region 5 - GAC and LSC
Region 6 - GLIAC and GLVC
Region 7 - NSIC and RMAC

..and Region 8 can just be the MIAA Where after an 11 game SILO schedule they can have their own circle jerk to their greatness and have their top 4 teams in regional playoff to themselves and watch Northwest win that every year too.

Then you rank all 8 winners where the power teams will get the top dpots and get to host and then you get your final four wishes and then you all will ***** on here in a dick wagging contest that your team should have been the host for the Semi Finals

I should run not only the Pee Sack but the entire level.

This is the fix. It's similar to the one I mentioned about keeping the 4 regions for playoff participants, but grouping it in pods of 4 and then reseeding in the quarterfinals nationally. Still save money on the first couple rounds on flights, and then get to reseed and reshape it to make sure the best teams have better opportunities to advance.

I still think regardless of perception of strength, if Shepherd or IUP is 11-0 and GV or Northwest are 9-2 and happen to meet in the quarterfinals, GV/NW should be traveling to SR1 to get that game in. I know history tells us that they will win 9/10 times or so, but you can't just tell the world their teams don't matter and these 4/5 teams get the benefit of the doubt every year on past success.

[Brandon]

This is the fix. It's similar to the one I mentioned about keeping the 4 regions for playoff participants, but grouping it in pods of 4 and then reseeding in the quarterfinals nationally. Still save money on the first couple rounds on flights, and then get to reseed and reshape it to make sure the best teams have better opportunities to advance.

I still think regardless of perception of strength, if Shepherd or IUP is 11-0 and GV or Northwest are 9-2 and happen to meet in the quarterfinals, GV/NW should be traveling to SR1 to get that game in. I know history tells us that they will win 9/10 times or so, but you can't just tell the world their teams don't matter and these 4/5 teams get the benefit of the doubt every year on past success.

What if there is a one game difference?

The first two rounds would be pretty boring, but it might help in the later rounds.

[IUPNation]

What if there is a one game difference?

The first two rounds would be pretty boring, but it might help in the later rounds.

But you get the result you want for the later rounds without telling most of the D2 membership they can’t participate because Kle thinks they’re garbage.

You mean 13 week of MIAA games would be torture? You’d get your own region!!

:-)

[Brandon]

I think 11 weeks of MIAA games is torture.

Kle is just jacking with you. Like I said previously, in a 28 team playoff seeded nationally, many SR1 teams would still make it.

[KleShreen]

I think 11 weeks of MIAA games is torture.

Kle is just jacking with you. Like I said previously, in a 28 team playoff seeded nationally, many SR1 teams would still make it.

They'd get in based on a broken numbers system that doesn't take relative conference strength in to account, but they wouldn't deserve it. Would be like letting an 11-1 MAC team in the CFB Playoff.

[Brandon]

They'd get in based on a broken numbers system that doesn't take relative conference strength in to account, but they wouldn't deserve it. Would be like letting an 11-1 MAC team in the CFB Playoff.

You don't think IUP and Shepherd were two of the best 28?

[KleShreen]

You don't think IUP and Shepherd were two of the best 28?

Sorry, when you said "many SR1 teams" I assumed you were talking about a comparable amount to what each region already gets. They'd probably be worthy of having 2 or 3 each year. But certainly not the 7 they currently get. Although, one could argue that given the historical semifinals results, even 2 might be pushing it. Sure feels like the 9th-12th teams in the other regions would be more competitive for national titles than the 1st/2nd teams from SR1 most years.

[Predatory Primates]

I think 11 weeks of MIAA games is torture.

.

I agree.

[Ram040506]

What if there is a one game difference?

The first two rounds would be pretty boring, but it might help in the later rounds.

I think they should do it as they have been, some formula or committee deciding. Shepherd hosting GV that year was the right call. The following year there was some back and forth about whether Shepherd should host UNA, and I think the correct decision was made then too allowing SR1 to host.

If Shepherd had won the PSAC against IUP, and was undefeated I think West Florida or Mines should have had to come to WV as well.

[Brandon]

Sorry, when you said "many SR1 teams" I assumed you were talking about a comparable amount to what each region already gets. They'd probably be worthy of having 2 or 3 each year. But certainly not the 7 they currently get. Although, one could argue that given the historical semifinals results, even 2 might be pushing it. Sure feels like the 9th-12th teams in the other regions would be more competitive for national titles than the 1st/2nd teams from SR1 most years.

There would be four at a minimum. NE10 Champion / MEC Champion / PSAC Champion / GMAC Champion

[Ram040506]

Sorry, when you said "many SR1 teams" I assumed you were talking about a comparable amount to what each region already gets. They'd probably be worthy of having 2 or 3 each year. But certainly not the 7 they currently get. Although, one could argue that given the historical semifinals results, even 2 might be pushing it. Sure feels like the 9th-12th teams in the other regions would be more competitive for national titles than the 1st/2nd teams from SR1 most years.

Now you're trolling. Nation got to you lol.

[Brandon]

I think they should do it as they have been, some formula or committee deciding. Shepherd hosting GV that year was the right call. The following year there was some back and forth about whether Shepherd should host UNA, and I think the correct decision was made then too allowing SR1 to host.

If Shepherd had won the PSAC against IUP, and was undefeated I think West Florida or Mines should have had to come to WV as well.

I absolutely disagree.

In 2016, UNA was the top seed in SR2 and was undefeated against D2 teams. Shepherd was also undefeated, but was the 3 Seed in SR1. Without a doubt, UNA should have been the host.

[Ram040506]

I absolutely disagree.

In 2016, UNA was the top seed in SR2 and was undefeated against D2 teams. Shepherd was also undefeated, but was the 3 Seed in SR1. Without a doubt, UNA should have been the host.

Agree to disagree. Shepherd had more D2 wins and played more games, UNA had 9 D2 games. I don't think it hurt them in that discussion that the previous year they showed well too by beating GV.

[Brandon]

Agree to disagree. Shepherd had more D2 wins and played more games, UNA had 9 D2 games. I don't think it hurt them in that discussion that the previous year they showed well too by beating GV.

I've run out of patience for using flawed metrics to attempt to justify poor decisions. These metrics have proven to be a failure.

On Inside D2Football, we talk about criteria versus common sense all the time. Looking through that lens.

North Alabama was the one seed in SR2.
North Alabama was undefeated in Division II.
North Alabama was undefeated in Gulf South Conference play.

Shepherd was the 3 in SR1.
Shepherd was undefeated in Division II.
Shepherd was undefeated in Mountain East Conference play.

Every one of those facts indicates UNA should have been the host. They were a higher seed in a tougher region and played a tougher schedule.

The only way to justify anything else is to pretend that all regions and conferences are equal, and no one that pays attention to D2 would make that case.