Video: Should Division II Overhaul the Playoff System? - with Mike Racy

[Brandon]

I get the concern with that perceived free pass for SR1 to still have 25% representation. NCAA concern from what I can gather on this conversation is travel $'s so was just trying to find some middle ground. I too would be for getting rid of regionalization to a degree but hoping we can maintain some type of regional representation in the playoffs as a whole. Whether that is conference champions auto bids or something else.

As a fan I'd love to see new matchups from programs that don't ever get to meet on the field. It's been fun to see Colorado Mines and Ferris the past couple years in the final 4 as a Shepherd fan, regardless of how that turned out (ouch). Getting it to the reseeding of the quarterfinals I think appeases both sides of the argument to a point that would be acceptable for all parties. The final 4 would have a better shot at being the showcase for D2 that some want with more battle tested teams. Travel $ is kept down through 2 rounds, everyone "wins."

I know you're discussing this in good faith. I appreciate that.

Right now, every region is certain to have 25% representation in the semifinals. All that has been accomplished with the method you've discussed is moved that 25% certainty to the round before the semifinals. I do think it would provide a better chance for better semifinal matchups, but there is still a great likelihood that one of the best teams will also have been eliminated by one of the others.

I feel like, minus some petty squabbling, that this thread is really trying to find good faith solutions.

[EastStroud13]

I get the concern with that perceived free pass for SR1 to still have 25% representation. NCAA concern from what I can gather on this conversation is travel $'s so was just trying to find some middle ground. I too would be for getting rid of regionalization to a degree but hoping we can maintain some type of regional representation in the playoffs as a whole. Whether that is conference champions auto bids or something else.

To me, the easiest way to do this is to go back to having the top 6 from each region qualify automatically, and then make the final 4 spots wild cards selected by a committee. Even if SR1 only gets the 6, that's still a 21% representation rate.

I still think the bracket should be formed to minimize travel through the first three rounds, not just the first round. But I'm sure there are ways to do that without being completely rigid to regions. There's a middle ground between what we currently have, and making the Shepherd/Notre Dame winner play the Delta State/CSUP winner in the second round.

[Brandon]

I still think the bracket should be formed to minimize travel through the first three rounds, not just the first round.

There's a middle ground between what we currently have, and making the Shepherd/Notre Dame winner play the Delta State/CSUP winner in the second round.

It's hard to do that while avoiding rematches.

What's wrong with the Shepherd/Notre Dame winner playing the Delta State/CSUP winner in the second round?

[IUPNation]

I agree with incremental changes. I greatly dislike the idea of getting some kind of bonus for taking a money game against a D1. It doesn't hurt you to do it now, but it hurts others.

I'm ok with revising regions in the short term, or sticking with quadrants of some kind to be set up at selection time, but rigid regionality needs to die forever.

How about combining 1/2 anbd 3/4 into two big brackets?

Even though it has never been used against a team as far as I know. This would remove the fear of being penalized for going out of region.

I never understood why it would be bad if IUP wanted to play Central Washington and hurt your ranking in the region. It makes no sense. It's a D2 game.

The selection process is what really needs to change. I'm a little stuck on how to do that, but I would like to see better metrics with some kind of human oversight. I don't want polls involved unless the way they are done is revamped to a strict "Who would beat who" goal. If we had a poll like that along with some consultants for final selection and placement, I think we could get top a better product.

I despise the spread sheets as well. They do not tell the story. In 2006 when IUP got screwed out of a playoff spot, they were winning games and dropping in the rankings. it was insane.

As far as making sure everyone was represented, maybe allow for 16 sure thing spots based on conference locations, and 12 spots to be selected on merit.

I dislike the idea of neutral games. The ncaa neuters home sites so much that there isn't much of a home field advantage as it is. I think neutral sites would end up losing more money than home sites would.

Home field is a big deal at this level. One team is traveling and one is sitting home in their own beds having more time to prepare. It burned me up when certain schools never left home all playoffs. I think the Final Four games should be neutral...and if you have an East bracket and a West bracket...you can have neutral sites where you don't have to travel too far.

[IUPNation]

I have long advocated for a 10 game resume rather for playoff participation. However, I 100% disagree that there should be a bonus for playing an FCS. The bonus is the guarantee.

You've paid attention long enough to know that schools would schedule a 1AA team and claim a loss shouldn't be used against them but a win should be a feather in their cap.

The loss shouldn't hurt as bad. If IUP played Villanova and lost by 14 that's not as bad as playing Fairmont State and losing by 14. Taking a risk should be rewarded...isn't that the whole lecture to the Pee Sack on here?

IUP played Youngstown State in 1999. They were a rare 3 loss team in the 16 team era to make the playoffs. That was the team that lost in Maryville by 8. Obviously battling a then D1AA power held some weight come playoff selection time.

[IUPNation]

Yes. I know why it's done in theory, but it robs both the home fan and the visiting fan of the best environment possible. A team that travels to CSS for a playoff game doesn't get the real experience.

Do you not understand how some people might have felt seeing Northwest never leaving the KC area for two straight years in the playoffs? I mean how much more could they have titled the playing field in your favor? I mean you had ever regional game at home, the semi final game at home and then played the title game a short commute from campus.

That's what I hate.

For some background on why I am so bent on this:

In 1991, when there weren't any regions and teams were picked for the playoffs...IUP went into the playoffs undefeated and Ranked #1 in the only poll.

They played Shippensburg and Virginia Union at home in the first two rounds and won a combined 108-14.

So when it came time for the Semi Final game....you'd think the top ranked team in the country would get the home game right?

WRONG!

They forced IUP on the road to Jacksonville State and they lost by 7.

Why did they get the home game and not us? Games were bidded for based on money...not by merit.

I hold a grudge over that.

I also did not like losing to North Alabamastan on their home field on a ****ing fluke pass play by a friggen high school option offense. Put that game in Indiana and we would have run them off the field.

So....that's why I don't want 6-8 teams always having home games every year in the playoffs come the Final Four or Finals.

[Brandon]

One team is traveling and one is sitting home in their own beds having more time to prepare. It burned me up when certain schools never left home all playoffs.

I think the Final Four games should be neutral...and if you have an East bracket and a West bracket...you can have neutral sites where you don't have to travel too far.

I used to think that way but changed my mind after talking to players.

In a lot of instances, travel time is less because they're in an airplane and not on a bus. Also, they eat better on the road since those costs are covered by the team/NCAA.

I think the attendance would be very poor in neutral site semifinal games. I think it could also negatively affect attendance at the championship game.

[Brandon]

The loss shouldn't hurt as bad. If IUP played Villanova and lost by 14 that's not as bad as playing Fairmont State and losing by 14.

IUP played Youngstown State in 1999. They were a rare 3 loss team in the 16 team era to make the playoffs. That was the team that lost in Maryville by 8. Obviously battling a then D1AA power held some weight come playoff selection time.

Oh I totally understand that. In the past, teams wanted a loss to a 1AA team to be meaningless, but wins or close losses should have been a boon to their playoff resume. Every game should have consequences unless the rules are changed.

What was the score of the YSU game?

[Brandon]

Do you not understand how some people might have felt seeing Northwest never leaving the KC area for two straight years in the playoffs? I mean how much more could they have titled the playing field in your favor? I mean you had ever regional game at home, the semi final game at home and then played the title game a short commute from campus.

That's what I hate.

For some background on why I am so bent on this:

In 1991, when there weren't any regions and teams were picked for the playoffs...IUP went into the playoffs undefeated and Ranked #1 in the only poll.

They played Shippensburg and Virginia Union at home in the first two rounds and won a combined 108-14.

So when it came time for the Semi Final game....you'd think the top ranked team in the country would get the home game right?

WRONG!

They forced IUP on the road to Jacksonville State and they lost by 7.

Why did they get the home game and not us? Games were bidded for based on money...not by merit.

I hold a grudge over that.

I also did not like losing to North Alabamastan on their home field on a ****ing fluke pass play by a friggen high school option offense. Put that game in Indiana and we would have run them off the field.

So....that's why I don't want 6-8 teams always having home games every year in the playoffs come the Final Four or Finals.

In 2015 and 2016, Northwest earned the right to host all those games. The championship game just happened to be in Kansas City and it simply wouldn't have mattered where the championship game was played. Nothing was tilted in NW's favor.

Good thing schools can't outbid others anymore.

[EastStroud13]

It's hard to do that while avoiding rematches.

What's wrong with the Shepherd/Notre Dame winner playing the Delta State/CSUP winner in the second round?

It's such a long way to travel compared to playing, say, the Davenport/UIndy winner. Personally, I just don't see the gain.

I'm fine with rematches in the playoffs in the second/third round. They happen. If the idea is to keep national contenders from the same conference apart from each other (say GVSU and Ferris), then seed the top 8 teams first and make them the "anchors" of each region.

[Brandon]

It's such a long way to travel compared to playing, say, the Davenport/UIndy winner. Personally, I just don't see the gain.

I'm fine with rematches in the playoffs in the second/third round. They happen. If the idea is to keep national contenders from the same conference apart from each other (say GVSU and Ferris), then seed the top 8 teams first and make them the "anchors" of each region.

The gain is in perception. They are more interesting matchups. Other areas of the country have to take flights in the first and second round. I know it's an anomaly in SR1.

Your second paragraph is what Matt proposed.

[Matt Witwicki]

To me, the easiest way to do this is to go back to having the top 6 from each region qualify automatically, and then make the final 4 spots wild cards selected by a committee. Even if SR1 only gets the 6, that's still a 21% representation rate.

I still think the bracket should be formed to minimize travel through the first three rounds, not just the first round. But I'm sure there are ways to do that without being completely rigid to regions. There's a middle ground between what we currently have, and making the Shepherd/Notre Dame winner play the Delta State/CSUP winner in the second round.

Keep in mind, there are going to be flights in round two. There were 4 this past season come R2. You can only do so much after R1 to avoid flights once you start charting the locations of the top 10-20 teams on a map. Almost half the 2nd round matchups are going to have a flight..even without planning your best to avoid it.

This last year we saw MSU fly to CO Mines and MIAA teams head to MI..and others. What "we" currently have is mostly SR1. Folks in SR1 just aren't accustomed to that much travel in early rounds given the current structure which has the teams the Northeast playing just themselves until the semis.

Come round 2 there is 8 games to be played that weekend....and 16 teams remaining. In theory, the top 8 seeds from the original bracket should all have a home game. In the example you mentioned above, you'd like to see the winner of Shep/ND play against another NE team..in a perfect world. However, there's only 2 top teams in the 8 seeded squads and they'd already be hosting the Dav/UIndy winner and then the SRU/Ashland winner..and both of those would be drivable matchups. Since there's teams like Angelo in TX, WFla way down south, and the overall North/South distance we have here..there's gonna be some flights for R2.

[Brandon]

Keep in mind, there are going to be flights in round two. There were 4 this past season come R2. You can only do so much after R1 to avoid flights once you start charting the locations of the top 10-20 teams on a map.

This is a map of the teams that finished in the D2Football Top 25 Poll.

[EastStroud13]

Keep in mind, there are going to be flights in round two. There were 4 this past season come R2. You can only do so much after R1 to avoid flights once you start charting the locations of the top 10-20 teams on a map. Almost half the 2nd round matchups are going to have a flight..even without planning your best to avoid it.

This last year we saw MSU fly to CO Mines and MIAA teams head to MI..and others. What "we" currently have is mostly SR1. Folks in SR1 just aren't accustomed to that much travel in early rounds given the current structure which has the teams the Northeast playing just themselves until the semis.

Come round 2 there is 8 games to be played that weekend....and 16 teams remaining. In theory, the top 8 seeds from the original bracket should all have a home game. In the example you mentioned above, you'd like to see the winner of Shep/ND play against another NE team..in a perfect world. However, there's only 2 top teams in the 8 seeded squads and they'd already be hosting the Dav/UIndy winner and then the SRU/Ashland winner..and both of those would be drivable matchups. Since there's teams like Angelo in TX, WFla way down south, and the overall North/South distance we have here..there's gonna be some flights for R2.

I'm not saying that flights are going to be eliminated, but I still don't really see the reasoning behind "pre-scheduling" a guaranteed flight just to get a unique matchup. You can seed the top 8 teams and then still distribute the rest of the teams regionally. Whichever region gets most of the SR1 teams is still going to be the easiest most likely, but at least now there's probably a GVSU or Ferris in that quadrant acting as a filter.

[IUPNation]

Oh I totally understand that. In the past, teams wanted a loss to a 1AA team to be meaningless, but wins or close losses should have been a boon to their playoff resume. Every game should have consequences unless the rules are changed.

What was the score of the YSU game?

13-7