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

[IUPNation]

(1) How can I elaborate on the concept of momentum?

(2) I can only speculate. My speculation might be totally off.

IUP was dominating the region and winning a lot of games. They were semifinalists in 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. They made the championship game in 1990 and 1993.

Scholarships are reduced by the conference by 1996. When did the reductions begin? It's hard not to see at least a correlation between reductions and IUP achievement.

But back to the speculation on momentum. IUP sees that the reductions are hurting the programs ability to go deep in the playoffs and win the region, much less win a national championship.

Decisions are made in the athletic department. "If we can't fund enough to get to the national championship, why don't we simply fund at a level to be competitive regionally?

Reductions in higher ed contributions are happening around them. "Let's divert and better balance funds since we can't win it all anymore." They are no longer bumping up against the 25 limit.

Success on the field wanes. Interest wanes. IUP Is just another PSAC program.

In the near past, the limitations are removed. But people who would have been supporting a nationally relevant IUP are no longer as interested in financially supporting. It's not as easy to get people to start giving again as it would have been to keep them supporting the program.

Quite frankly, some of the previous supporters are no longer with us and their families didn't have the same experience they did.

(3) You know that's political suicide and a non-starter in Pennsylvania. It's not even relevant.

Record	Playoff Appearances	Semifinals	Championship Game
10-2	1987	-	-
8-3	1988	-	-
11-2	1989	1989	-
12-2	1990	1990	1990
12-1	1991	1991	-
8-1-1	x	-	-
13-1	1993	1993	1993
10-3	1994	1994	-
8-3	x	-	-
8-3	1996	-	-
5-5	x	-	-
10-2	1998	-	-
9-4	1999	1999	-

We have a Bingo.

[IUPNation]

Thanks for your explanation on momentum and glad you figured it out.

PSAC football scholarship limit
1994 - 30
1995 - 28
1996 - 26

And now we're learning that there were Title IX violations and ineffective fundraiser as coach.

(3) Bad sentence structure again. "You know...." No I don't. There's someone on this message board always saying how revolutionary and forward thinking the school is, so why not? In 2014, legislation was introduced that would have done just that.

Maybe if you paid attention on the Pee Sack board you would have already known it. It was posted there in the past and not by me because I’m not local. The IUP centric (aren’t they all) threads on the Pee Sack forum are always chock full of info. I was just repeating what I read and some speculation.

[Predatory Primates]

(1) How can I elaborate on the concept of momentum?

(2) I can only speculate. My speculation might be totally off.

IUP was dominating the region and winning a lot of games. They were semifinalists in 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. They made the championship game in 1990 and 1993.

Scholarships are reduced by the conference by 1996. When did the reductions begin? It's hard not to see at least a correlation between reductions and IUP achievement.

But back to the speculation on momentum. IUP sees that the reductions are hurting the programs ability to go deep in the playoffs and win the region, much less win a national championship.

Decisions are made in the athletic department. "If we can't fund enough to get to the national championship, why don't we simply fund at a level to be competitive regionally?

Reductions in higher ed contributions are happening around them. "Let's divert and better balance funds since we can't win it all anymore." They are no longer bumping up against the 25 limit.

Success on the field wanes. Interest wanes. IUP Is just another PSAC program.

In the near past, the limitations are removed. But people who would have been supporting a nationally relevant IUP are no longer as interested in financially supporting. It's not as easy to get people to start giving again as it would have been to keep them supporting the program.

Quite frankly, some of the previous supporters are no longer with us and their families didn't have the same experience they did.

(3) You know that's political suicide and a non-starter in Pennsylvania. It's not even relevant.

Record	Playoff Appearances	Semifinals	Championship Game
10-2	1987	-	-
8-3	1988	-	-
11-2	1989	1989	-
12-2	1990	1990	1990
12-1	1991	1991	-
8-1-1	x	-	-
13-1	1993	1993	1993
10-3	1994	1994	-
8-3	x	-	-
8-3	1996	-	-
5-5	x	-	-
10-2	1998	-	-
9-4	1999	1999	-

This makes sense.

[IUPNation]

So back to improving the process.

So do you agree or disagree this will take several steps to fix or you want a whole new wheel right away.

I think planned out changes over the next year or two might work better for a real fix than going all out now and then the cure turns out be worse than the problem.

1. First move is to revaluation the regions for 2023. Change them now..basically reshuffle 3 and 4.

2. Then Fix the criteria. Make it only a ten game basis. Let team schedule who they want for an 11th, give a bonus for playing up an FCS team. The current setup does not encourage playing out of region or FCS teams. West Chester no longer plays Delaware like that had for years. Now they get stuck playing Clarion or Mercyhurst.

If going away from regions what is put in place so certain conferences don’t get all of the advantages every post season. How do you keep the peace but still make it fair. Should semi final games go neutral site so those games aren’t at the same small group of schools every season. Lesser conferences may forgo the advantages of the region if they know the power teams can’t enjoy home cooking in the final two rounds. I would live with that.

[Predatory Primates]

So back to improving the process.

So do you agree or disagree this will take several steps to fix or you want a whole new wheel right away.

I think planned out changes over the next year or two might work better for a real fix than going all out now and then the cure turns out be worse than the problem.

1. First move is to revaluation the regions for 2023. Change them now..basically reshuffle 3 and 4.

2. Then Fix the criteria. Make it only a ten game basis. Let team schedule who they want for an 11th, give a bonus for playing up an FCS team. The current setup does not encourage playing out of region or FCS teams. West Chester no longer plays Delaware like that had for years. Now they get stuck playing Clarion or Mercyhurst.

If going away from regions what is put in place so certain conferences don’t get all of the advantages every post season. How do you keep the peace but still make it fair. Should semi final games go neutral site so those games aren’t at the same small group of schools every season. Lesser conferences may forgo the advantages of the region if they know the power teams can’t enjoy home cooking in the final two rounds. I would live with that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Ram040506]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Set the playoffs for the first 2 rounds on a regional basis. Once teams reach the quarterfinals, reseed the whole bracket 1-8 nationally and let it roll. Personally, I think that is the fix and has good balance between cost savings on a regional basis for travel in the first couple rounds, and also making sure to break up this year for example, the GV/FS matchup in the quarterfinals.

A step further on moving the MIAA to Region 4 would help in avoiding the NW/Pitt St matchup in the quarterfinals as well, otherwise they will have to duke it out with the GLIAC on a regional basis to get 2 reps for the quarterfinals to be reseeded. This year would have looked like this if they went with the above set up:

1. GV vs Wingate
2. Ferris vs IUP
3. Angelo St vs Shepherd
4. Co Mines vs West Florida

I think most would agree this would provide the final 4 with teams that have earned it at that point. No "freebies."

[GorillaTeacher]

So back to improving the process.

So do you agree or disagree this will take several steps to fix or you want a whole new wheel right away.

I think planned out changes over the next year or two might work better for a real fix than going all out now and then the cure turns out be worse than the problem.

1. First move is to revaluation the regions for 2023. Change them now..basically reshuffle 3 and 4.

2. Then Fix the criteria. Make it only a ten game basis. Let team schedule who they want for an 11th, give a bonus for playing up an FCS team. The current setup does not encourage playing out of region or FCS teams. West Chester no longer plays Delaware like that had for years. Now they get stuck playing Clarion or Mercyhurst.

If going away from regions what is put in place so certain conferences don’t get all of the advantages every post season. How do you keep the peace but still make it fair. Should semi final games go neutral site so those games aren’t at the same small group of schools every season. Lesser conferences may forgo the advantages of the region if they know the power teams can’t enjoy home cooking in the final two rounds. I would live with that.

I think the committee approach is best for playoff qualifiers. I think the D2 media group needs to be heavily involved. There can be metrics, but they shouldn't be used to seed teams. I think getting neutral site games for semi finals would be a logistical nightmare. There are some real dumps out there to play games in, and it somewhat detracts from the scale of the games (However, Top Taggart field is worse than a lot of high school stadiums). I think the NCAA needs to rethink their neutering of the game experiences during playoffs. I also don't understand handicapping the conferences that are perceived better. If we are honest, football is rarely a game where any team can win on any given Saturday, I know reducing the field is not likely to happen, but it probably does need to happen.

I don't know if incremental is the way to go, I think setting the format and setting a date in the future would give schools to analyze the process, and see projections of how things would have turned out.

I don't understand rewarding FCS games. many of those games are just money games. Maybe a reward for winning, but no penalty for losing. One would still have to take into account the quality of opponent played in FCS. We know the levels of competition get blurred between these two divisions.

28(24, preferred) teams named by conference representatives and media members. They can use metrics to help name teams and seed them, but no requirement to. Conferences are guaranteed 1 representative no more than 3(No independents are guaranteed a spot). Then make it similar to FCS. Minimize travel in the first two rounds, no conference rematches in the first round. I think this would help relieve the pressure to stay in region for opponents, because the reward on the spread sheet is no longer there. SOS and NET scores are probably the largest uses for seeding.

Set the date 5 years in the future. Give the media and schools ideas of what the brackets would look like every year. The individual schools can then prepare opponents and strategize to game it however they see fit.

[Predatory Primates]

For clarity, the numbers guys seem to agree that teams haven't been penalized for playing out of region in the past. The consensus seems to be that the in region qualifier is a dead spec.

[Matt Witwicki]

For clarity, the numbers guys seem to agree that teams haven't been penalized for playing out of region in the past. The consensus seems to be that the in region qualifier is a dead spec.

Correct. It's not even worth discussing..it's not looked at.

[Predatory Primates]

Set the playoffs for the first 2 rounds on a regional basis. Once teams reach the quarterfinals, reseed the whole bracket 1-8 nationally and let it roll. Personally, I think that is the fix and has good balance between cost savings on a regional basis for travel in the first couple rounds, and also making sure to break up this year for example, the GV/FS matchup in the quarterfinals.

A step further on moving the MIAA to Region 4 would help in avoiding the NW/Pitt St matchup in the quarterfinals as well, otherwise they will have to duke it out with the GLIAC on a regional basis to get 2 reps for the quarterfinals to be reseeded. This year would have looked like this if they went with the above set up:

1. GV vs Wingate
2. Ferris vs IUP
3. Angelo St vs Shepherd
4. Co Mines vs West Florida

I think most would agree this would provide the final 4 with teams that have earned it at that point. No "freebies."

If you put the MIAA in SR4, it would have been Pitt and/or NW in games 3 and 4 above last year, imo.

This isn't a bad compromise, but it insulates SR1 and guarantees them 2 of the final 8 every year. I'm still not hyped about that. I would prefer they deregionalize after round 1 or put one of the stronger conferences in with SR1 instead of letting it stand alone.

That's kind of short term thinking on my part, but if the PSAC or another sr1 conference starts producing beast teams and has to play the gliac or GSC every year in region it could be revisited. Maybe they could revisit regions every 2 years as a standard to avoid that.

[Matt Witwicki]

I realize it's my own bracket, but my thoughts are that things can be solved rather quickly by making the jump to the FCS style bracket. The following rules would be applied..

-Every conference champion gets in the dance. It's up to that specific conference as to how they'll determine their champ. (15 teams right there as of 2022) 13 at-large teams = 28 total.

-A national selection committee because we are getting rid of regions all-together in this process, they serve zero purpose in the FCS structure.

-Selection criteria used by the committee would be the following: The existing SOS data, W/L, both polls, Massey, and recent historical data in the postseason.

-No repeat games from the existing season in round one (teams don't work their tails off to make the playoffs only to face a conference opponent in R1..that's dumb..and avoidable)

-Top 8 teams are seeded and placed in the bracket based on that seeding (Teams 1 and 8 are in the same quad, 4 and 5, etc)

-The rest of the teams are ranked by the committee for the remaining home games. In 2022, teams like Shepherd, Mankato, IUP, NWMSU would host R1, etc.

-The teams slated for road games would then be placed in the bracket with geography in mind to limit flights. Due to teams in CO and TX often being a good distance from others, those would be the most likely candidates for flying, but that's tbd. When addressing future opponents for the top 4 seeds, have the game that precedes it be a regional opponent if possible. For example, Emporia at Mankato..the winner gets Pitt....SRU at Ashland, winner gets Ferris.

-As for playing NAIA, D3, FCS....go ahead, but the committee will judge your full body of work (unlike now). If you play a solid FCS and win, you get rewarded. If you get destroyed, that will be considered, along with how good an FCS team you played. If you played at NDSU, that's not going to be looked at remotely the same as playing Tarleton. Any common sense judging of team performance would be applied here.

In this bracket there's 2 flights in R1..and likely 4 in R2. In the actual 2022 playoffs there was 1 flight in R1, 4 in R2....for comparison.

Note: We do have the inclusion of West GA, Harding, and Emporia State per our selection method. Emporia would have edged out Wayne State for the last spot.

....IMO we can make this happen by using the FCS method and still rewarding each and every conference by giving them a bid for their champ.

I'm sure there are holes that we haven't thought of with this method..but it feels like this would produce a better tournament (big picture) than what we have.

The bracket below (shown in the original video on this topic) was drawn up using the criteria listed in this post.

[Brandon]

So back to improving the process.

2. Then Fix the criteria. Make it only a ten game basis. Let team schedule who they want for an 11th, give a bonus for playing up an FCS team. The current setup does not encourage playing out of region or FCS teams. West Chester no longer plays Delaware like that had for years. Now they get stuck playing Clarion or Mercyhurst.

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.

[Brandon]

(1) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

(1) Agree. I'm for getting rid of it altogether, but if it is to remain, it needs to have ultimate flexibility. It should be possible for members of the same conference to be in different regions.

(2) The 'vs. regional' component needs to be eliminated immediately.

(3) I never really considered the revenue loss for a neutral site game. I had only thought of the potential increase in expense.

[Brandon]

I think the NCAA needs to rethink their neutering of the game experiences during playoffs.

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.

[Ram040506]

If you put the MIAA in SR4, it would have been Pitt and/or NW in games 3 and 4 above last year, imo.

This isn't a bad compromise, but it insulates SR1 and guarantees them 2 of the final 8 every year. I'm still not hyped about that. I would prefer they deregionalize after round 1 or put one of the stronger conferences in with SR1 instead of letting it stand alone.

That's kind of short term thinking on my part, but if the PSAC or another sr1 conference starts producing beast teams and has to play the gliac or GSC every year in region it could be revisited. Maybe they could revisit regions every 2 years as a standard to avoid that.

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."