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

[KleShreen]

I only care about one school.

Do you not say you don’t trust everything and like to question. Well I don’t trust any fix that I know is going to slant towards a few schools and I’m questioning those who want this to prove me wrong.

How is it "slanted towards a few schools" when your school could be doing the exact same thing? Schedule good non-conference opponents. It's really straightforward. That's literally all the "few schools" are doing. Schedule good opponents, win all your games.

[GorillaTeacher]

My argument is that it really isn't a major improvement for either. Only the most diehard of D2 fans want to see their team play a random team from across the country in the second round. The subset of fans that are on this board are not representative.

The second round is not currently the main problem. The problem is the semifinals and finals. So, relax the regional rigidity, allow some weaker teams to make runs to the quarterfinals, but to get to the finals you have to either beat a top-4 team, or beat a team that managed to defeat them. There's no need to reinvent the wheel here.

You're conflating the desires here. The goal is to get more competitive match ups later in the tournament, reduce regular season rematches in R1 while also reducing flights in the first two rounds. This method is used in FCS, and wouldn't call it re inventing the wheel, but stealing something that has a higher probability of producing the best teams in the country to meet in the semi-finals or finals, not R1 or R2. Doing this I think would also make a better product for the spectator. Playoffs aren't there to get peculiar match ups, but it is an un-intended feature of this method.

I think we can all agree that as a product, watching the two semi finals and Champ game was really not very entertaining, and Ferris basically coasted to a Championship after their GV game.

[Brandon]

I'll be honest, one of my biggest worries is losing some of those playoff rivalries. Some are friendly, and some aren't, but there are some teams in the region that I look forward to seeing in the playoffs. Obviously, that shouldn't be a reason not to change things, but it would be nice to at least keep a little of that.

This is a good post.

[EastStroud13]

You're conflating the desires here. The goal is to get more competitive match ups later in the tournament, reduce regular season rematches in R1 while also reducing flights in the first two rounds. This method is used in FCS, and wouldn't call it re inventing the wheel, but stealing something that has a higher probability of producing the best teams in the country to meet in the semi-finals or finals, not R1 or R2. Doing this I think would also make a better product for the spectator. Playoffs aren't there to get peculiar match ups, but it is an un-intended feature of this method.

I think we can all agree that as a product, watching the two semi finals and Champ game was really not very entertaining, and Ferris basically coasted to a Championship after their GV game.

• Get more competitive matchups later in the tournament - Do you mean quarterfinals or semifinals? Either way, what is the need to mess with the second round?
• Reduce regular season rematches in R1 - I have no problem with this goal. It does not need to significantly impact the second round.
• Reducing flights in the first two rounds - Does the system introducing cross-country flights do this to a significant degree? Or does it simply change where the flights happen? If it's the latter, then what's the need?

I am fundamentally against applying the FCS system in D2, I think there are fundamental flaws in trying to apply a national-scale bracket format to a division that is predominantly regionalized. I also don't think it actually provides a significant improvement over what smaller changes would provide. Again: as long as each quadrant has a top-4 team, you have to be that team or beat that team (transitively, at least) in order to reach the semi-finals. It should filter out all the pretenders from the final four. Everything else is musical chairs.

[Matt Witwicki]

I guess it doesn't really make a difference who's making the flights, but if cross country flights are already guaranteed in one region, why spread that out to other regions? Flights are part of the equation when you exist as a program in a spread-out area. Why "punish" other programs just because they have multiple options that do not require a flight? This isn't D1.

In the current playoff format the PSAC teams get to play other a conference opponent in R2 or someone like Notre Dame/Ashland, etc.

However, in a true ranked (top 8 teams) national tourney/FCS style there wouldn't be a SR1 team seeded in the 1 through 8. Teams like Shepherd and IUP would be just outside that top 8. Come R2..PSAC teams like Shepherd and IUP would be tasked with playing one of the top 8 seeds if the results played out as expected with favorites winning. In a 2022 FCS tourney that would've been GVSU, Ferris, Angelo, Pitt, WFla, OBU, Delta, and CO Mines. Of those 8 listed, Shepherd is a flight to every single one of them. IUP would drive to either GVSU or Ferris, while being a flight to the other 6.

Keep in mind, this can all be done without seeing a jump in flights. It would just be a slight change as to who'd be flying..and that would now include the SR1 teams for round 2, while it has been the midwest teams primarily in the past.

By having SR3 and SR4 as their own silos (like seen with the NCAA a year ago) it limits scheduling with proximity in mind. The same can be said with SR1 and SR3 (Michigan teams). There are MIAA teams within driving distance to Colorado squads, but with them in different SR's it can create more flights. There's no perfect way to create a region on the west side of the D2 map..because you have the RMAC which connects slightly with the NSIC and also the MIAA, who also overlaps with the GLVC, and then the Lonestar and the GAC also can drive to some of the GLVC and the MIAA..so the regional structure is really challenging there....whereas an FCS style bracket structure wouldn't have any regional boundaries but could still incorporate the 'within 600 miles' mindset.

[EastStroud13]

In the current playoff format the PSAC teams get to play other a conference opponent in R2 or someone like Notre Dame/Ashland, etc.

However, in a true ranked (top 8 teams) national tourney/FCS style there wouldn't be a SR1 team seeded in the 1 through 8. Teams like Shepherd and IUP would be just outside that top 8. Come R2..PSAC teams like Shepherd and IUP would be tasked with playing one of the top 8 seeds if the results played out as expected with favorites winning. In a 2022 FCS tourney that would've been GVSU, Ferris, Angelo, Pitt, WFla, OBU, Delta, and CO Mines. Of those 8 listed, Shepherd is a flight to every single one of them. IUP would drive to either GVSU or Ferris, while being a flight to the other 6.

Keep in mind, this can all be done without seeing a jump in flights. It would just be a slight change as to who'd be flying..and that would now include the SR1 teams for round 2, while it has been the midwest teams primarily in the past.

By having SR3 and SR4 as their own silos (like seen with the NCAA a year ago) it limits scheduling with proximity in mind. The same can be said with SR1 and SR3 (Michigan teams). There are MIAA teams within driving distance to Colorado squads, but with them in different SR's it can create more flights. There's no perfect way to create a region on the west side of the D2 map..because you have the RMAC which connects slightly with the NSIC and also the MIAA, who also overlaps with the GLVC, and then the Lonestar and the GAC also can drive to some of the GLVC and the MIAA..so the regional structure is really challenging there....whereas an FCS style bracket structure wouldn't have any regional boundaries but could still incorporate the 'within 600 miles' mindset.

I understand what a FCS style bracket is. I disagree that the advantages are significant. The compromise is using the 8-seed system, and guarantee SR1 at least 1 seed. The flight issue mostly solves itself from there.

[GorillaTeacher]

In the current playoff format the PSAC teams get to play other a conference opponent in R2 or someone like Notre Dame/Ashland, etc.

However, in a true ranked (top 8 teams) national tourney/FCS style there wouldn't be a SR1 team seeded in the 1 through 8. Teams like Shepherd and IUP would be just outside that top 8. Come R2..PSAC teams like Shepherd and IUP would be tasked with playing one of the top 8 seeds if the results played out as expected with favorites winning. In a 2022 FCS tourney that would've been GVSU, Ferris, Angelo, Pitt, WFla, OBU, Delta, and CO Mines. Of those 8 listed, Shepherd is a flight to every single one of them. IUP would drive to either GVSU or Ferris, while being a flight to the other 6.

Keep in mind, this can all be done without seeing a jump in flights. It would just be a slight change as to who'd be flying..and that would now include the SR1 teams for round 2, while it has been the midwest teams primarily in the past.

By having SR3 and SR4 as their own silos (like seen with the NCAA a year ago) it limits scheduling with proximity in mind. The same can be said with SR1 and SR3 (Michigan teams). There are MIAA teams within driving distance to Colorado squads, but with them in different SR's it can create more flights. There's no perfect way to create a region on the west side of the D2 map..because you have the RMAC which connects slightly with the NSIC and also the MIAA, who also overlaps with the GLVC, and then the Lonestar and the GAC also can drive to some of the GLVC and the MIAA..so the regional structure is really challenging there....whereas an FCS style bracket structure wouldn't have any regional boundaries but could still incorporate the 'within 600 miles' mindset.

I was trying to articulate this without having as in depth knowledge as to why 8 instead of 4. The teams that fly are irrelevant, just keeping the numbers down.
I imagine, though, that if eastshroud asked the athletes in SR1 if they would rather be the best team in SR1 or be the best team in the country they would answer the latter. If all you want is to be the best team in your "area" don't participate in the playoffs. It seems only people in SR1 want to keep it regionalized. The rest of us seem to be of the mindset that comfort is the opposite of growth.

[GorillaTeacher]

I understand what a FCS style bracket is. I disagree that the advantages are significant. The compromise is using the 8-seed system, and guarantee SR1 at least 1 seed. The flight issue mostly solves itself from there.

I dont think any one "region" or school or conference should be guaranteed a seed.

[Matt Witwicki]

I dont think any one "region" or school or conference should be guaranteed a seed.

Of course not.

[Predatory Primates]

If I was SR1 fan, I wouldn't be so worried. The schools up there are absolute masters at gaming the system. They'll figure out a way to game the new one, and if you are lucky, it will be by playing great noncons and getting home field.

[IUPNation]

The flights aren't punishment. The NCAA covers travel expenses for the teams in the tournament. It makes no difference where the flights happen. We need to expect they will happen, and reduce the number in the first two rounds. We are advocating this can be done while getting a bracket that is better for the athletes and the spectators.

Which athletes and spectators?

[IUPNation]

How is it "slanted towards a few schools" when your school could be doing the exact same thing? Schedule good non-conference opponents. It's really straightforward. That's literally all the "few schools" are doing. Schedule good opponents, win all your games.

The MIAA was SILO. Just stop it.

[Ram Tough]

This is a good post.

Shepherd's rivalry with IUP was built in the playoffs well before they were in the same conference. If Notre Dame plays Shepherd, you bet your behind that I am going to be a little more juiced than with most teams. But I also am not married to it strictly by the regions. Geographically, I would get geared up over Shepherd playing Bowie or one of the Virginia CIAA squads as well. I do think there should be a regional component early on, but that doesn't mean it needs to strictly adhere to the regions, if that makes sense.

[Predatory Primates]

Which athletes and spectators?

I. Would say all athletes.. Do you not think IUP athletes would rather be on a legit team than undeservingly make the semis where they get woodshedded and laughed at?

I'm not buying spectators. Then you get into fans,, and fans are irrational by definition.

[Predatory Primates]

The MIAA was SILO. Just stop it.

They were silo for a blink, but when they were at their best, they weren't.

I'm fine with silo conferences being banned from the playoffs.