Questions for Selection Sunday

[ndsubison1]

Nope. The committee, including Matt Larsen, decided to ignore every precedent in the selection process history ignored the financial component, but just in that game.
UND had a higher bid than Weber and I'm not sure it was that close.

lol only UND.

[Mr Meaty]

Agreed. Until it happened.

I thought bids were the deciding factor all the time. But I guess not this time. That is not a good thing going forward.

[Kevin]

i love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy bro but this is like sandy hook tier

if u keep spreading this disinfo i will sue u for a billion dollars

[Hammersmith]

I thought bids were the deciding factor all the time. But I guess not this time. That is not a good thing going forward.

Agreed. I'm hoping ML voted against it(I suspect he did, but I've been wrong before - like yesterday when I said the bid is the determining factor in 99.8% of cases).

[Professor Chaos]

Math question... would Ralphs 52% cut come out of the gross gate before the NCAA cut? And would the NCAA require to be paid their amount without deducting that ole schemer's take? Would make it near impossible for UND to ever host a game in that case.

The NCAA takes 75% of the net gate not the gross gate or the bid amount (whichever is higher) so I'm going to guess the 52% (if that's really the cut even for playoff football games???) comes out before the NCAA takes it cut.

[abc123]

I thought bids were the deciding factor all the time. But I guess not this time. That is not a good thing going forward.

Regionalization is bad enough, protecting all the east coast AQ teams (UND and Weber should not have been matched up in the 1st round for any reason other than geography). But now you add in additional subjectivity on the non-seeded games.

[tony]

This seems like a easy run to the title game to me? we will be 21 point faves in the first 2 games and I dont see them losing in the nice weather if they have to go to sac state.. then just hope SDSU loses along the way and win the title game by 20 plus again.. and get ready for 2023..

I dunno, football is about match-ups. I don't know how we match up with these teams, but Montana State looks really good (that said, they have a 40-point loss and I have a hard time getting past that.)

[ndsubison1]

Regionalization is bad enough, protecting all the east coast AQ teams (UND and Weber should not have been matched up in the 1st round for any reason other than geography). But now you add in additional subjectivity on the non-seeded games.

They also didnt match up Weber and Idaho who didnt play in regular season.

[NDSU92]

Regionalization is bad enough, protecting all the east coast AQ teams (UND and Weber should not have been matched up in the 1st round for any reason other than geography). But now you add in additional subjectivity on the non-seeded games.

This is unbelievable. Gonna side with you 100% on this one. Total BS and not surprising from the committee. It's just all around a terrible way to determine playoffs. A bunch of directly biased professionals getting in a room and politicking and in the best case scenario they're indirectly biased because they're human beings. If UND outbid Weber and didn't get the game the entire hypocrisy of the NCAA is being laid out. "We have to regionalize everything to save money" ... "Oh wait we'll leave money on the table because we think Weber is better than UND"

I mentioned it yesterday after the bracket was released: I think this all just points to the negotiation-based nature of what goes on behind those closed doors. It just smells like a "okay the Valley can have three teams but UND is going to get paired against the best non-seed and they have to go on the road"-type outcome. UND is better than half of first round teams and yet they find themselves on the road at a team that should've been a seed. It's a sham and you're right to be pissed.

[tony]

Regionalization is bad enough, protecting all the east coast AQ teams (UND and Weber should not have been matched up in the 1st round for any reason other than geography). But now you add in additional subjectivity on the non-seeded games.

I don't think that one of the last teams into the playoffs really deserves to squawk about who they play in the first round.

I would love to expand the seeds to 12 or 16 though.