Bidding and Hosting a Playoff Game

[MankatoBison]

To me this is the most succinct way to put it and is the real problem. The bids, NCAA needing money and not taking it, etc is beyond the point. They very much decided to seed Weber outside of the seeded teams and that is not ok. What's even dumber to me is the if the rules clearly state that performance can be taken into place how did nobody see this issue coming? The rules very much allow for actively seeding unseeded teams, but then why have seeded teams?

Correct.

Sam Herder apparently did an article about exactly this
"Weber was just outside of getting a seed and a first-round bye. The idea of the committee giving a team like Weber a home game for the first round and not just basing it on who gives the NCAA the most money is fine if you just boil it down as exactly that. The problem is the lack of consistency and breaking precedent. Giving teams home games based on bids is the objective approach the committee seems to have always taken. For this game, they took the subjective approach."

https://herosports.com/fcs-football-...-changes-bzbz/

[abc123]

Wait until you see the comments from the committee chairman where he states that seeded teams aren't necessarily guaranteed to host games and they will still look at and compare bids.

[Herd]

Let’s be honest, there no way that Montana deserved to be in the field, just being 4-4 in conferenced and getting boat raced the last week of the season. Montana was in 6th place in their conf standing, at 4-4, 6th. Looking up at Davis at 5-3.

So, how did Montana get to 7-4, and Davis only 6-5?

Davis Ooc schedule: Cal, South Dakota State, San Diego 1-2
Monte Ooc schedule: NW Stste, South Dakota, IN State 3-0

I’m mean, is this crazy or what? You reward a team that plays a patsy ooc, who is a worse team that the 5th place team in their own conference, and give them a home game against a 9-2 conf champ in semo. You can’t make this stuff up

Montana had no business even making the field ahead of Davis, let alone hosting. What happened with Und ain’t right either, but the Montana situation smells bad.

[EC8CH]

UND over bid what they would have been able to pay the NCAA after Ralph's ghost took his cut. Therefore per Price is Right rules they got the sad loser horn and lost to Weber who didn't over bid as they don't have to pay a dead Nazi sympathizer more than half of their ticket revenue.

[Bisonator98]

Simple solution is throw out the bid system and seed 16 teams. Of course the NCAA doesn't know how to do anything with common sense so it'll probably keep doing random shit.

[ndsubison1]

Wait until you see the comments from the committee chairman where he states that seeded teams aren't necessarily guaranteed to host games and they will still look at and compare bids.

So what would be the point of seeding then.

[tony]

Simple solution is throw out the bid system and seed 16 teams. Of course the NCAA doesn't know how to do anything with common sense so it'll probably keep doing random shit.

They'd still need a funding mechanism.

And I'm going to take another swing at a dead horse: SRS sucks. Example: NDSU defeated Kansas State and went undefeated. SRS was like, "Yeah, but did you see how objectively good Eastern Illinois is?"

[NDSU92]

Let’s be honest, there no way that Montana deserved to be in the field, just being 4-4 in conferenced and getting boat raced the last week of the season. Montana was in 6th place in their conf standing, at 4-4, 6th. Looking up at Davis at 5-3.

So, how did Montana get to 7-4, and Davis only 6-5?

Davis Ooc schedule: Cal, South Dakota State, San Diego 1-2
Monte Ooc schedule: NW Stste, South Dakota, IN State 3-0

I’m mean, is this crazy or what? You reward a team that plays a patsy ooc, who is a worse team that the 5th place team in their own conference, and give them a home game against a 9-2 conf champ in semo. You can’t make this stuff up

Montana had no business even making the field ahead of Davis, let alone hosting. What happened with Und ain’t right either, but the Montana situation smells bad.

Lol they've been making decisions x10 worse than Montana being in the playoffs every year. Put Davis in the CAA or the southern and they're at worst a 9-2 6 seed.

I still remember the days when the committee would just get together and count wins. 7 and you're in, 6 and you're out. An FBS win over anyone, including UMass, was more highly valued than beating the #1 FCS team. If two teams had the same record the committee would just rank them based on who was geographically further east.

I'm only slightly kidding with that last sentence.

[abc123]

So what would be the point of seeding then.

No one knows anymore.
Very unlikely to happen. And frankly, I think it actually goes against what is in the NCAA manual. But the fact that the selection committee chair even mentioned it goes to show how big of a mess this has turned into.

[tony]

Lol they've been making decisions x10 worse than Montana being in the playoffs every year. Put Davis in the CAA or the southern and they're at worst a 9-2 6 seed.

I still remember the days when the committee would just get together and count wins. 7 and you're in, 6 and you're out. An FBS win over anyone, including UMass, was more highly valued than beating the #1 FCS team. If two teams had the same record the committee would just rank them based on who was geographically further east.

I'm only slightly kidding with that last sentence.

Well, there's a simple solution to "the committee would just rank them" - don't have the committee rank them as a group - have them submit ballots that get tabulated.

That said, I'm looking at this year's bracket and really can't see how, from an on-the-field standpoint, it's not better than most, if not all, from the last 10 years. The committee could have so easily divided the top 4 seeds into a Big Sky side and MVFC side in the bracket, for example, but chose not to.