REPORT OF THE
DIVISION I FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP COMMITTEE
During its June 26-27 meeting, the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) members of the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet representing active FCS conferences reviewed an appeal of the Football Championship Committee’s (FCC) decision to deny the application of the Northeast Conference for automatic qualification to the 2007 NCAA Division I Football Championship. The cabinet voted to approve the eight conferences originally recommended by the FCC and defeated a motion to wave cabinet policy and direct the FCC to award nine automatic qualification bids in 2007. However, the cabinet directed the FCC to develop a plan for providing access to all eligible conferences by the 2008 championship and noted that any recommendation with a budget impact must be submitted to the cabinet for review at the cabinet’s September meeting.
The FCC, after consultation with conference members, believes that, for the reasons noted below, expansion of the championship bracket to 24 teams is in the best interest of the football championship. If the cabinet believes this to be unworkable, a two-game play-in format can accommodate eligible conferences. However, it must be understood that with the impending eligibility of other conferences, this is only a short-term solution to greater bracket expansion needs in the future. Brackets illustrating the potential impact of these options are attached.
ACTION ITEMS.
1. 24-Team Bracket.
a. Recommendation. Increase the championship bracket from 16 to 24 teams.
b. Rationale. A 24-team bracket allows for up to 12 automatic qualifying conferences, addressing the current and future needs of eligible conferences. At least 12 institutions could be selected to participate in the championship on an at-large basis (up from current eight, in recognition of the growth of the subdivision and that the current bracket makes this championship one of the more difficult postseason football events in which to gain access. A 24-team bracket also allows for the seeding of up to eight teams, which has been the most-requested championship enhancement from the FCS membership in recent years.
c. Estimated Budget Impact. It is anticipated that the financial impact of an additional week of competition involving an addition of eight teams to the championship will be approximately $1,014,800.
d. Student-Athlete Impact. An additional week of championship competition for student-athletes advancing from the opening round of competition to the first round of the championship.
e. Other Issues. To accommodate the added round of competition, the championship would have to be extended on the back end (conflicting with the Christmas holiday or moved to a near-New Year’s date); the football season would have to start a week earlier (budget impact for all FCS institutions) or; teams would have to give up their bye weeks during the season, creating the possibility of up to 16 straight weeks of competition for a team participating in every round of the championship. The committee also recognizes that there may be other issues inherent to this option that it has not yet had time to fully vet in this short timeframe.
2. Play-In Round of Competition.
a. Recommendation. Establish a play-in round of competition featuring two games the week before the first round of the championship.
b. Rationale. An opening round of competition allows for the inclusion of conferences that meet the minimum automatic qualification eligibility criteria. Featuring two games in the opening round creates an environment that reduces the stigma of play-in competition and provides balance to the bracket. A play-in directly addresses the need for more inclusion in the championship for eligible conferences while also providing a framework for including other conferences that will become eligible in future years.
c. Estimated Budget Impact. It is anticipated that the costs associated with two additional flights and per diem for four teams as well as expenses for game officials during opening weekend will be approximately $251,200.
d. Student-Athlete Impact. An additional week of championship competition for student-athletes advancing from the opening round of competition to the first round of the championship.
e. Other Issues. To accommodate the added round of competition, the championship would have to be extended on the back end (conflicting with the Christmas holiday or moved to a near-New Year’s date); the football season would have to start a week earlier (budget impact for all FCS institutions) or; teams would have to give up their bye weeks during the season, creating the possibility of up to 16 straight weeks of competition for a team participating in every round of the championship. Additionally, the committee would have to develop policies to determine which teams participate in the play-in round. Doing so may require increasing the number of teams seeded in the bracket because to determine the play-in participants in a manner other than competitiveness challenges the integrity of the overall bracket. The committee also recognizes that there may be other issues inherent to this option that it has not yet had time to fully vet in this short timeframe.
3.
Seeding and
Pairing.
(1) Recommendation. That the policy for seeding and pairing of the 16-team championship bracket be amended to not require that the top four seeds to be paired with the opponent in “closest” geographic proximity. As such, the pairing policy would be amended to stipulate that the top four seeds will be paired with teams that are in geographic proximity with the following exception: the top four seeds will not be paired with seeds five through eight provided no additional flights are incurred. Teams from the same conference, however, may be paired in the first round if it facilitates maintaining the 1-4 and 5-8 separation.
(2) Rationale. Only four of the 16 teams in the championship bracket are seeded. Two of the last three years, the policy requiring teams to be paired with opponents in the “closest” geographic proximity has created situations where the fourth seeded team has been paired with an opponent ranked by media and coaches poll to be the fifth strongest team in the championship. Ideally, the committee would like to be able to seed the top eight teams in the bracket, but because cabinet policy and championship budgets do not permit such, the committee believes this to be the best workable solution. This recommendation is unrelated to the directive from the cabinet regarding championship inclusion for eligible conferences.
(3) Budget Impact. None.
(4) Student-Athlete Impact. None.