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

[KleShreen]

But it has to be proven based on the current season....it's doesn't matter what happened the previous seasons.

Since a number of conferences are SILO...you can't measure it and why the regional format will most likely remain in place.

Because things in college football don't change drastically from season to season. It's not like all of a sudden the GLIAC or MIAA's best team is going to not be competitive when one season ends and the next begins. It's not like the top team from the NE-10 is all of a sudden going to be a powerhouse in one off-season. That just doesn't happen outside of extreme circumstances. That's why conferences at all levels of college football are perceived the way they are. That's why everyone knows there's a Power 5 and Group of 5 in FBS. That's not going to change overnight.

The MAC isn't going to come out in fall of 2023 and start busting ass all over the Big Ten. But hey, maybe they can pick up a couple wins here and there in the regular season over P5 schools, maybe the MAC can produce one team who threatens the CFP discussion this year or next year, and if they can do these things year-after-year and improve upon them over a long term, the conference can start being regarded as competitive on a national scale and start getting considered for the same spots that the current #3 Big Ten teams are being considered for. It's no different in FCS, or D2, or D3.

There's schools which build a great system around football and are competitive. Whether that is facilities, whether that is coaching, whether that is strength training, whether that is nutrition, whether that is academic support staff, whether that is an environment around athletics that breeds success across the entire department, schools go at it from all different angles all around the country. Ferris doesn't have great facilities. Their facilities are kinda garbage. They're in a boring AF part of Michigan. But yet they're on the brink of being a dynasty. Why? Because they invested in coaching and recruiting and training, it paid off, and now they're one of the perennial powerhouses because they've had success and kids want to play where they can win.

Maybe if the PSAC can at least be competitive in a national semifinal next year, and then maybe they can win a national semifinal in 2024, and then maybe they can be competitive in a national title game in 2026, and maybe they can win a national title in 2028, then maybe the conference and region will get more respect. But as it stands, there's 50 years of futility by the conference and region as a whole once they get past quarterfinals and have to face national competition. So they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt of anything. And when your region gets its opportunity on a national stage to showcase what the best of D2 has to offer, they've been getting embarrassed for decades, and it has made D2 football look like a joke. You don't care about that because you've said that being good in the region is all that matters. The other three regions are trying to win national championships. Even if SR1 could produce one program who actually appears like they're taking it seriously on a national scale, and runs roughshod over the entire region and plays competitive games in the semis and finals, it would improve the perception of the region. But there's not a single school who has been willing to make that commitment in decades in SR1. Meanwhile, there's 8+ schools trying to be competitive on the national stage in each of the other regions, and it shows every time in the semis and finals when the same regions keep having success and the same region keeps having no success.

[IUPNation]

No. I don't advocate for that and I don't think it would happen.

The reason you can't understand what anyone wants is because the guys trolling you spit hyperbolic nonsense about the 10th MIAA team's JV squad being better than the PSAC champion and you respond by trolling them with nonsense, off-topic examples, and changing the goalposts.

All of these muddy the discussion in an attempt to win some sort of argument.

My opinion is that any conference should be limited to a maximum of three teams and that all conference champions should be included.

In an FCS style bracket, I do think it's possible that 6-10 teams could claim one of the four spots every year. Do you think Ferris State would have been undeserving of a Top-Four seed last year? Do you think Grand Valley was undeserving? How about Pittsburg State?

Which four teams did you think were the best last year? Which four teams did you think were best in 2018? What about 2013?

I understand an individual not wanting certain teams to get the benefit of the doubt year after year. But we've already practiced the inverse for over two decades - pretending that two teams with 11-0 records are equal when most people know they aren't. That's not the best way to operate either.

Frankly, I have nothing but respect for any program that really tries to win a national championship. I have respect for any program that busts its ass to try to maximize what it can be.

I'm also done with giving the benefit of the doubt to teams that haven't earned it in an attempt to be "fair." They will have to prove it to my by winning or playing very competitive games in the future.

1. We all know I won. :-)

2. Ferris/GV/Pitt and then a toss up between Mines and West Florida as the top 4.

3. Do you honestly think the "lesser" conferences are just going to capitulate and bow down to the power conferences demands?

[Brandon]

Is having a Midwestern dominated playoff field where most of the games are played in the Midwest really going make Division 2 better?

I really can't understand what anyone wants on here.

Other than lets have an FCS style bracket where 5-6 teams will claim the top 4 seeds literally every year even if they have 2 losses...because the past....nobody has really put out there a format that is fair.

I don't mind there being a change...I just don't want it to be set up that certain conferences get the advantage based on past reputation and not the current season's results. How will a new format quantify each team in D2. How do we measure strength if there is no cross over play across the country.

..because one day..IUP will rise again. :-)

No. I don't advocate for that and I don't think it would happen.

The reason you can't understand what anyone wants is because the guys trolling you spit hyperbolic nonsense about the 10th MIAA team's JV squad being better than the PSAC champion and you respond by trolling them with nonsense, off-topic examples, and changing the goalposts.

All of these muddy the discussion in an attempt to win some sort of argument.

My opinion is that any conference should be limited to a maximum of three teams and that all conference champions should be included.

In an FCS style bracket, I do think it's possible that 6-10 teams could claim one of the four spots every year. Do you think Ferris State would have been undeserving of a Top-Four seed last year? Do you think Grand Valley was undeserving? How about Pittsburg State?

Which four teams did you think were the best last year? Which four teams did you think were best in 2018? What about 2013?

I understand an individual not wanting certain teams to get the benefit of the doubt year after year. But we've already practiced the inverse for over two decades - pretending that two teams with 11-0 records are equal when most people know they aren't. That's not the best way to operate either.

Frankly, I have nothing but respect for any program that really tries to win a national championship. I have respect for any program that busts its ass to try to maximize what it can be.

I'm also done with giving the benefit of the doubt to teams that haven't earned it in an attempt to be "fair." They will have to prove it to my by winning or playing very competitive games in the future.

[IUPNation]

I know you're just being you, but a conference champions only playoffs is even worse than the system we have now.

It might make sense if all the conferences had equal levels of commitment or potential, but we're long past pretending that is the case.

Then what makes sense?

Is having a Midwestern dominated playoff field where most of the games are played in the Midwest really going make Division 2 better?

I really can't understand what anyone wants on here.

Other than lets have an FCS style bracket where 5-6 teams will claim the top 4 seeds literally every year even if they have 2 losses...because the past....nobody has really put out there a format that is fair.

I don't mind there being a change...I just don't want it to be set up that certain conferences get the advantage based on past reputation and not the current season's results. How will a new format quantify each team in D2. How do we measure strength if there is no cross over play across the country.

..because one day..IUP will rise again. :-)

[IUPNation]

Conference championships are over rated. They give the kids something to hang their hats on, but at this level, they want national championships.

There isn’t a reality of conference champs making it more likely that you’re a title contender. They’re actually both caused by having a better than average team.

Then why have private conferences at all?

The NCAA should just create a league that assigns schools to certain divisions...given them a schedule and have a playoff format like the NFL.

[IUPNation]

Uh yea. If you want to call it reputation. Really, it is results based on conference strength that has been proven for decades in non-conference and postseason play.

But it has to be proven based on the current season....it's doesn't matter what happened the previous seasons.

Since a number of conferences are SILO...you can't measure it and why the regional format will most likely remain in place.

[Brandon]

Those teams don't deserve playoff bids for failing in the regular season. So you are just admitted you want the playoffs to be rigged in favor of teams in conferences they never win based "on reputation".

I know you're just being you, but a conference champions only playoffs is even worse than the system we have now.

It might make sense if all the conferences had equal levels of commitment or potential, but we're long past pretending that is the case.

[Brandon]

To what?

To eliminate regionalized playoffs.

[GorillaTeacher]

Conference championships are over rated. They give the kids something to hang their hats on, but at this level, they want national championships.

There isn’t a reality of conference champs making it more likely that you’re a title contender. They’re actually both caused by having a better than average team.

[KleShreen]

Those teams don't deserve playoff bids for failing in the regular season. So you are just admitted you want the playoffs to be rigged in favor of teams in conferences they never win based "on reputation".

Uh yea. If you want to call it reputation. Really, it is results based on conference strength that has been proven for decades in non-conference and postseason play.

[IUPNation]

So if Gannon, Mercy and Seton Hill are technically fully funded, shouldn't they be competitive year in and year out with the that as an advantage over the other PSAC schools or is there something else holding them back? Not looking to pick an argument just trying to understand.

They just aren't attractive programs for foosball. Mercyhurst did win the Pee Sack in 2010. Gannon was like 8-3 this year. They do well in other sports...just not foosball. IUP and Slimey Pebble are just more established programs in Western PA and both fund in the 20's...so they are going to get the better players than going to them and just getting discounted tuition.

Look at the list of schools who have played and or won the national title...not very many private schools.

D3 is the small private school level.

[IUPNation]

Of course you would want only conference champions to be in it, because you are aware that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th place teams in the GLIAC, MIAA, and GSC are all better than the conference champion from any of the SR1 conferences. So you'd want to make sure they aren't in there.

Your suggested playoff wouldn't even include the reigning national champions lol.

Those teams don't deserve playoff bids for failing in the regular season. So you are just admitted you want the playoffs to be rigged in favor of teams in conferences they never win based "on reputation".

[IUPNation]

Or vote to change the structure.

To what?

[DawgUp]

No. That stopped 15 years ago when Mercyhurst and Gannon fled the GLIAC and joined the Pee Sack. Since they are private and are considered "fully funded" by printing coupons and voodoo economics...the cap was dropped. There is no barrier to any team in the Pee Sack from being fully funded in reality and not private school fake reality.

Right after that Mon Valley U (California) was up to 30 by being kind of shady with their money...which came out years later.

So in the Pee Sack...Gannon, Mercyhurst and Seton Hill are technically fully funded. Only Gannon was competitive this past season.

So if Gannon, Mercy and Seton Hill are technically fully funded, shouldn't they be competitive year in and year out with the that as an advantage over the other PSAC schools or is there something else holding them back? Not looking to pick an argument just trying to understand.

[KleShreen]

You are literally saying they are fully funded.

Giving teams a playoff bid that didn't win their conference title is rewarding mediocrity as well.

This is who should have been in the playoffs this year......top seeded team gets the first week bye and that would have been either GV or Pitt State. These were your conference champions and shame on the Northern Sun for not having a title game. I only picked Minnesota State because they won the head to head with Bemidji.

Ashland - 9
Fake Notre Dame - 10
Assumption - 14
IUP -7
Fayetteville State - 15
West Florida -5
Newberry - 11
Benedict - 12
Ouachita Baptist - 8
Grand Valley - 1
Indianapolis -13
Pittsburg(h) State - 2
Angelo State - 4
Minnesota State - 6
Colorado Mines -3

First Round
Backet One
Pitt vs Fayetteville State
IUP vs Fake Notre Dame

Bracket Two
Colorado Mines vs Assumption
Minnesota State vs Newberry

Backet Three
Angelo State vs Indianpolis
West Florida vs Benedict

Bracket Four - Winner Plays Grand Valley
Ouachita Baptist
Ashland

Bracket one and two will face off and three and four will do the same until they get down to two teams. Easy peasy.

So I'm not fighting for the status quo. I'm just fighting against the Midwestern attempt to make sure they get the majority of bids in a "fixed" playoff system while discriminating against conferences for nothing more than not having as much money.

Of course you would want only conference champions to be in it, because you are aware that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th place teams in the GLIAC, MIAA, and GSC are all better than the conference champion from any of the SR1 conferences. So you'd want to make sure they aren't in there.

Your suggested playoff wouldn't even include the reigning national champions lol.