Should a 7-5 team make the playoff field in 2025

[AndrewGrizness]

It'll come down to the Q word - quality. A 7 win team for sure can get in but they'll need some quality wins.

Some examples:

North Dakota, currently 6-3, say they beat one of the xDSU's and lose to one, they'll finish 7-4 (they only had an 11 game season) and they're firmly in.

South Dakota, currently 6-4 and just have SDSU and SIU to play. Say they go 1-1 on that stretch they'll finish 7-5 and I'd think will be in being that both final games are ranked.

Idaho, currently 4-5, they play Davis, Sac, and ISU. Beating Davis would be a quality win and put Davis in big trouble, next week beating Sac would push Sac off the bubble. I think if they go 7-5 they get in as well - however if they stack up against UND and USD they're probably 3rd in line

If UND loses to both dakotas they most definitely should not be in but they will be

 

[5280Griz]

If they are in the top 24, yes, of course. Why are you so hung up on records, as opposed to quality of the team and how they rank compared to other teams. Your "concern" seems silly to me.

I agree with you it should be based on quality of the team instead of the record. Some people here seem to disagree with the sentiment.

 

[zootownrox]

So a DEI approach?

No, the way Republicans have used that term they mean it to be anything that isn't white supremacy. So unless the playoff committee only selects teams without minority players (good luck finding them) that wouldn't qualify as DEI according to the white supremacists/Republicans.

 

[5280Griz]

We have seen what happens when we put in these non scholarship teams in the playoffs. The Pioneer is 2-12 all time in the playoffs with their best team. We saw this in Missoula in 2014 when the Griz beat San Diego in the playoffs 52-14. Why should we be adding more teams like San Diego that are probably going to get boatraced?

 

[Gaeilge1]

I do not have an answer at this point. Everyone seems focused on the number of losses and not the quality of wins, which in my mind is every bit as important a consideration. Is a team who loses 4 of their first 5, but then wins 6 of their last 7, less deserving than than a team who starts 7-0 but then loses 4 of their final 5?! I don't know!
it would depend on the caliber of opposition in both scenarios. But until the season is over, one can not say. I
On its face I am not opposed to a 5 loss team in the field, but an awful lot of questions would need to be asked and answered before the determination is made!

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

No, the way Republicans have used that term they mean it to be anything that isn't white supremacy. So unless the playoff committee only selects teams without minority players (good luck finding them) that wouldn't qualify as DEI according to the white supremacists/Republicans.

Not quite what I meant, and you missed the sarcasm.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

If UND loses to both dakotas they most definitely should not be in but they will be

Well the FCS world needs a UNI when even UNI can't UNI.

 

[tourist]

So, that article is from this month about the future....

You said "After Bobby 1.0, the FCS playoff committee chose some puzzling playoff qualifying teams. I a$$ume it had to do with the hi$torically awe$ome ability to put butt$ in the $eats$, therefore, the Griz had an edge with WGS with 25,000+ $eat$," with the clear implication that the Griz were selected as a playoff qualifying team when they didn't deserve to be one, all for the money.

Can you point to WHICH year's Griz team you think didn't belong in the playoffs?

I DID check the post-Bobby 1.0 playoff records, after I posted, and, as it turns out, I was wrong!That's what I get for relying on memory, which is...fading. 'Seldom wrong, but never in doubt' used to be my motto, but any more its 'probably wrong, but never in doubt.' I will try not to rely on memory again.

I did see that Pflu had a 7-4, 5-3 record(tied for third) in 2010, but didn't make the playoffs. An end to the playoff streak.

 

[BWahlberg]

Should UND get in at 7-5 if they lose to NDSU and SDSU with Chase Mason back and beat Murray State?

They'd have a better argument than a 7-5 Idaho.

Losses: Kansas State, Montana, South Dakota, NDSU, SDSU - all ranked or FBS.

Quality wins: SIU and Youngston

 

[ElrodGrizzly]

I DID check the post-Bobby 1.0 playoff records, after I posted, and, as it turns out, I was wrong!That's what I get for relying on memory, which is...fading. 'Seldom wrong, but never in doubt' used to be my motto, but any more its 'probably wrong, but never in doubt.' I will try not to rely on memory again.

I did see that Pflu had a 7-4, 5-3 record(tied for third) in 2010, but didn't make the playoffs. An end to the playoff streak.

Hey, the same happens to me! And I love that phrase. "Probably wrong, but never in doubt" is just great. Thank you for sharing that.

 

[uofmman1122]

I DID check the post-Bobby 1.0 playoff records, after I posted, and, as it turns out, I was wrong!That's what I get for relying on memory, which is...fading. 'Seldom wrong, but never in doubt' used to be my motto, but any more its 'probably wrong, but never in doubt.' I will try not to rely on memory again.

I did see that Pflu had a 7-4, 5-3 record(tied for third) in 2010, but didn't make the playoffs. An end to the playoff streak.

We were also 7-4 in 2017 with 7 D1 wins and were left out.

 

[5280Griz]

They'd have a better argument than a 7-5 Idaho.

Losses: Kansas State, Montana, South Dakota, NDSU, SDSU - all ranked or FBS.

Quality wins: SIU and Youngston

If Idaho wins out I think they could have a solid argument as well but they would have to pick up wins against UC Davis and Sac State. I don’t see UC Davis losing 2 weeks in a row.

 

[tourist]

Hey, the same happens to me! And I love that phrase. "Probably wrong, but never in doubt" is just great. Thank you for sharing that.

Another gem, not a tourist original, but very appropriate: 'The older I get, the greater I was.'

 

[Grizzlies1982]

We have seen what happens when we put in these non scholarship teams in the playoffs. The Pioneer is 2-12 all time in the playoffs with their best team. We saw this in Missoula in 2014 when the Griz beat San Diego in the playoffs 52-14. Why should we be adding more teams like San Diego that are probably going to get boatraced?

There are 24 slots in the playoffs. It is not exactly a tight supply. In any given year, realistically there might be only a half dozen of those 24 which could win it all.

Therefore, it is fair to include the champs from the Pioneer, Ivy, and every other conference. They PROBABLY don't have a hope in hell. Despite that, let them in the game. They earned that opportunity by winning their conference or compiling a stellar record (say 10 or more wins). I certainly don't see a problem placing them into the 24 team playoff. If their presence in the mix then ends up excluding a 7-5 Idaho or 8-4 Northern Arizona from the playoffs then so be it. Those teams PROBABLY don't have a hope in hell either.

 

[5280Griz]

There are 24 slots in the playoffs. It is not exactly a tight supply. In any given year, realistically there might be only a half dozen of those 24 which could win it all.

Therefore, it is fair to include the champs from the Pioneer, Ivy, and every other conference. They PROBABLY don't have a hope in hell. Despite that, let them in the game. They earned that opportunity by winning their conference or compiling a stellar record (say 10 or more wins). I certainly don't see a problem placing them into the 24 team playoff. If their presence in the mix then ends up excluding a 7-5 Idaho or 8-4 Northern Arizona from the playoffs then so be it. Those teams PROBABLY don't have a hope in hell either.

What about if it excludes 7-5 UND who came within 1 point of beating Montana in Missoula so they have shown they probably do have a better chance at making a run than a non scholarship team? 2015 Montana was 7-4 with wins over NDSU and EWU and they ended up playing and beating top 10 ranked South Dakota State in the playoffs. A non scholarship team would likely have lost by a lot against SDSU if they got in over Montana that season. If a team is 7-5 without any big wins then it is easier to leave them out but if they have wins over good teams as well as losses in some games they could have won it is more difficult to leave them out because they have shown they can beat the best.

 

[Grizzlies1982]

What about if it excludes 7-5 UND who came within 1 point of beating Montana in Missoula so they have shown they probably do have a better chance at making a run than a non scholarship team?

They undoubtedly would have a better chance than a Pioneer team. Though we are essentially just debating the window dressing of the 24 teams in the playoffs.

In your scenario a 7-5 North Dakota would have lost to Kansas St, Montana, So. Dakota, No. Dakota St, and So. Dakota State. All may be considered 'quality losses', yet that is FIVE losses, to every quality opponent they faced. Yes, the Sioux/Hawks would have a better chance of making a run, yet their chances of actually winning the Championship would not be considered much higher than a San Diego's or whomever the Pioneer Conference sent in.

 

[Griz in Texas]

What then, hypothetically speaking, would happen if all other teams across the FCS haven't a better record than 7-5 and/or 8-4?

As I understand it, twenty-four teams (24) are allowed into the FCS Playoffs with the top eight seeds getting a bye, at present. What I'd rather see is non-regional brackets with one through 24 seeded. Higher seeds hosting without the west playing western teams, primarily, and eastern teams playing eastern teams primarily, as has happened in the past on numerous occasions with the vast majority of FCS teams east of the Mississippi. Granted, general overall policy, seemingly, is not to have teams from the same conference playing each other in the First Round, which is all well and good until the later Rounds.

Very good points, it isn't always possible to have a 7-5 in there, just like in the NFL there is an occasional 8-9 division winner that gets a home game.

The field was expanded to 20 and then 24 because the NCAA is making more money, which is silly to call yourself a nonprofit when the bottom line is about dollars. I would be fully in favor of cutting the field back to 16 and I have felt this since hearing of the expansion from 20 to 24 when I went to the first NDSU championship game. I had to be there for my wife's Bearkats, but the NDSU fans were talking at that game about how the subdivision was "growing so much." It wasn't that there were so many more teams, I felt like they were saying that it was their way of saying that it was because of them the field was expanding.

Also, teams from the same conference can meet in the first round, I think the last time it happened was when Delaware played James Madison in 2018. The rule on it is that they cannot play if they have met in the regular season.

 

[Griz in Texas]

Yes, a 7-5 team should make the playoffs if they are in the top 24. That's the way it works. It doesn't matter how many losses. It matters how good they are in comparison to other teams. What if 2 losses are FBS? What is they are on a big winning streak? What if they just knocked off someone like SDSU or MSU? What if their QB was hurt at some point? To me, it's silly to arbitrarily say that a 5 loss team shouldn't make the playoffs. Is the alternative to put in a 6 loss team?

I agree with most of what you have here, but I don't like how it gets watered down; like all of the SEC teams in March Madness last year. That raised the question of what good is a conference tournament, but we're talking football. Why play a 12 game regular season if over half the teams are going to be in the postseason?
As far as 2 FBS losses, I feel that this will happen a lot less with the P4 going to 9 conference games and one other P4. Aside from that, the schools make the decision to play those two FBS games and take the money over winning. No one forces them to play those games. Overall though, to your point, the teams should be given consideration for all those variables at selection time so that the BEST 24 are selected.
I think on the other side of things, a team like Presbyterian, playing 2 lower level teams, should be pushed down the ladder. They are in a spot right now, however, that Drake is in if they win their last three and Presbyterian should not make the playoff field even if they are 11-1.

 

[Griz in Texas]

Really should depend on how many of those 5 losses are FCS and whether a school chose to limit its chances to win enough FCS games to qualify for the playoffs. We've seen some decent to good EWU teams with 2 FBS losses that didn't have a strong number of FCS wins.

Teams should be prioritized for FCS wins. The committee doesn't count FBS losses specifically because it's assumed you're going to lose, same reason they discount D-II wins.

FBS games cut into the number of times a team has to prove it's worth against FCS teams that actually count. If you're short on FCS wins because you chose to fill your schedule with games that don't qualify, FBS or DII, that should be a negative. That's on you.

Did SDSU have a chance through scheduling to increase the likelihood of picking up 8 FCS wins? (it did).

I completely disagree. They do count FCS losses. They aren't supposed to consider D-II wins, but do consider D-II losses, but you know at the end of the day when there is a human element involved, they are going to put the outcome into the equation, regardless of who it is. Don't try to put off on us that a loss to Massachusetts should not be counted, so then you have to consider how much weight you give a blowout loss to Oregon too.

 

[mthoopsfan]

I completely disagree. They do count FCS losses. They aren't supposed to consider D-II wins, but do consider D-II losses, but you know at the end of the day when there is a human element involved, they are going to put the outcome into the equation, regardless of who it is. Don't try to put off on us that a loss to Massachusetts should not be counted, so then you have to consider how much weight you give a blowout loss to Oregon too.

You are wrong saying the "committee is isn't supposed to consider D2 wins". The commmittee specifically said that last year. I am getting tired correcting you on this point. Pay attention or do some research. A D2 win obviously isn't considered a D1 win for purposes of achieving the "sorta" requirement of a certain number of D1 wins, but a D2 is completely considered to be a win. I agree with most of one of your recent prior posts.