2014 FCS Playoffs: Looking at the Hits and Misses of the Selection Committee

The field for the 2014 FCS college football playoffs has been announced. The selection committee had some tough decisions to make, especially after some teams who most likely would not have been included won their conference's automatic bid. Morgan State winning the MEAC, Liberty winning the Big South, and Sam Houston State winning the Southland Conference automatic bids threw some curveballs into the selection process (despite SHSU having a history of success the past few seasons and a couple solid wins over Central Arkansas and Stephen F. Austin, a lopsided 47-21 loss to Division II team Colorado State- Pueblo earlier in the season most likely would have prevented an 8-4 Bearkats team from getting an at-large bid). Now that the field is set, let's take a look at the major hits and misses the committee had with their selection decisions.

It would have been easy to give the No. 1 seed to North Dakota State. The Bison have won the last three FCS championships, only have a single loss on their record this season (the same as New Hampshire), beat FBS team Iowa State this season, won the conference championship in arguably the deepest conference in the FCS this season (the Missouri Valley Conference), and are the prohibitive favorites to win the FCS title for a fourth straight season.

However, New Hampshire went undefeated in FCS play this year (their one loss being to FBS team Toledo), while NDSU did not. Add in the fact that the Wildcats won the conference title in an also-deep Colonial Athletic Association this season, and the selection committee was faced with a UNH team that had also earned the right to be the No. 1 seed.

The selection committee had to decide whether to prioritize UNH going undefeated in FCS play, or NDSU having a big win over an FBS program while having all of the aforementioned things going for them as well. In the end, the committee got it right by focusing on FCS play, because those are the teams that the FCS playoff is for, not FBS teams. Plus, the honor doesn't really give UNH any advantages over No. 2 NDSU. They will both have a first round bye, both will have home-field advantage up through the semi-finals, and if both make it to the championship game, the rankings won't matter since that will be played on a neutral field. So this decision allowed the committee to make a symbolic gesture about the importance of FCS play while not affecting the top two teams in any meaningful way.

There's no gentle way to put this: the Sycamores didn't deserve to be in the playoffs. They were the only at-large team selected who had at least five losses. They were selected over some three and four loss teams who had more impressive resumes. The committee could have been excused if those five losses were all "good" losses to elite teams and in which Indiana State kept the game extremely close. That was not the case however. Four of the Sycamores' five losses were by two scores or more. That included a 34-20 loss in the last week of regular season play to Western Illinois, who finished the season 5-7 overall and was solidly entrenched in the bottom tier of the MVFC.

Perhaps the committee did it more to reward the MVFC for having a great season as a conference than to reward Indiana State for a mediocre season. Whatever their logic, it wasn't sound, and they screwed over at least one deserving team by making this decision.

Just a few weeks ago, the Griz appeared to be out of the running for a playoff spot. They had four losses, had an offense that had looked anemic in at least a few of their games this season, and still had to play rival Montana State, who was tied for first in the Big Sky Conference. They would have to beat a favored MSU team to even be considered for a spot. Things looked pretty bleak for the Griz.

But then this happened.  In the Brawl of the Wild rivalry game against MSU in the final week of the regular season, the Griz had one of the most dominant, impressive performances of any FCS team this season. They didn't just beat the playoff-bound Bobcats. They eviscerated them. The Griz forced an astounding eight turnovers! While one or two of those were gifts by the MSU offense, most were due to extremely high-level play by the Griz defense. While some may point out that the Bobcats were playing second string QB Jake Bleskin in place of injured star QB Dakota Prukop, that honestly doesn't do much to diminish what the Griz D did to MSU, as Bleskin had proved just a week earlier against a very good Idaho State team (more on them later) that he was more than capable of performing at a high level.

The Griz offense also had an impressive performance (at least in the first half, as they had already pretty much won the game by halftime). The game served as a good reminder that the offense could be elite, even if they hadn't always showed it this season.

Overall, the win made the Griz basically a must-pick for the committee. No other four-loss FCS team had played a game at a level as high overall as Montana did against Montana State. It's not often that a four loss team shows the potential to be the best team in the FCS, but for at least one game the Griz showed it. Whether or not the Griz again show that potential this season has yet to be seen, but they've earned the right to at least have a shot at it.

Whether or not Montana deserves to host a home game after nearly missing out on the playoffs is another matter entirely, but the committee's logic is fairly sound with that decision as well. They're not stupid.  A Montana home game with a pumped-up crowd is arguably the best experience the FCS has to offer, as well as one of the most profitable (only NDSU home games can be considered in the same ballpark as Montana's). Whether or not Montana deserved the right to host a home playoff game is up for debate, but there's no denying that it's beneficial to the FCS overall.

In the past, the committee has shown a fondness for selecting at least two MEAC teams for the playoffs, even though the conference was usually thought of as a weaker conference. Why they decided to abandon that practice this year is baffling, since there were several teams in the conference who had all made a good case for inclusion in the playoffs.

As mentioned in the opening slide, Morgan State winning the conference made things a little confusing. There was a five-way tie for first place in the MEAC. Through tie-breaking procedures, Morgan State was given the auto bid. That's significant, because they had arguably the smallest chance of any of those five teams of getting an at-large bid. That left four other MEAC teams looking for an auto-bid. At 7-5, North Carolina Central also had little chance of getting an at-large bid, leaving the MEAC with three teams that all had a shot at an at-large bid.

Bethune-Cookman and North Carolina A&T were both 9-3 overall, while South Carolina State was 8-4. South Carolina State however, had beaten both Bethune-Cookman and North Carolina A&T, giving them a solid claim at having earned a playoff spot. While it was clear that there wasn't room for all three teams in the playoffs, the MEAC had a pretty solid case for at least one of them getting in. This year, the MEAC was far from weak, a fact that the committee seems to have ignored, and which made not taking either Bethune-Cookman, North Carolina A&T, or South Carolina State a mistake.

The FCS tries to pit teams from the same regions against each other for most of the playoffs. It cuts down significantly on costs, as well as making for more impassioned games if the two teams and their fanbases are already quite familiar with one another. With this year's selection however, they took that to another level, setting up several potential matchups of conference foes against each other. While the matchups are ostensibly based solely on rankings, there's little chance that was actually the case this season, as there are an abnormally large amount of potential matchups between conference teams.

Sam Houston State and Southeastern Louisiana tied for the Southland Conference title this season. However, they did not face one another. So what did the committee do? They matched the Bearkats against the Lions in a first-round game. That's quite the matchup for a first round game, and was a brilliant decision by the  committee.

In the second round, there is the potential for four different matchups of conference teams against one another. Depending on how the first round plays out, we could possibly see MVFC matchups of South Dakota State vs. North Dakota State and Illinois State vs. Northern Iowa, a Big Sky matchup of Montana vs. Eastern Washington, and a CAA matchup of James Madison vs. Villanova. There's plenty of bad blood to go around in those matchups, which could make for an absolutely exhilarating second round.

And then there are a whole lot of possibilities for matchups between rivals and conference foes in the later rounds as well. The committee did an exceptional job overall of setting up matchups that should ensure good ratings, high attendance, and tense, exciting games.

Going into the last week of the season, Coastal Carolina was undefeated and was No. 1 in the FCS polls. They then lost by one point to Liberty when a 24-yard field goal was blocked with three seconds left in the game, costing them their undefeated season and the Big South Conference auto-bid. That's as good of a resume as any FCS team this season. While being dropped from the No. 1 spot for the narrow defeat wasn't surprising, what was shocking was how far the committee dropped them, all the way to No. 7.

For a team that has a solid claim for the No. 1 seed, being placed at No. 7 is baffling. The other six teams in front of the Chanticleers all also boast impressive seasons, but not a single one of them came closer to an undefeated season than the Chants. While losing the last game of the regular season by one point may cost CCU some momentum heading into the playoffs, it surely shouldn't have cost them six spots in the playoff seeding.

Does any of this matter though, since they get a first-round bye anyways? The answer is; possibly, yes. While the Chants still get a first-round bye, they now have more difficult matchups than the top 4 seeds do. It could also cost them home field advantage in the quarterfinals and semifinals, should they advance that far. For a team that was one point away from a perfect season, that's an awful lot to possibly lose out on, thanks to a confusingly harsh decision by the committee.

The Southern Conference has annually been one of the top FCS conferences for the past decade, at least. Three or four teams in the playoffs every season was the norm. So it might seem shocking to some that the mighty SoCon only has one team represented in the playoffs this season; the Chattanooga Mocs, who won the conference (and thus, the auto-bid).

The committee, however, knew exactly what they were doing by not extending an at-large bid to any of the SoCon teams. While it is not uncommon to reward a traditionally strong conference with a playoff bid or two for conference teams who didn't deserve it, the committee stayed away from that this season, and should be applauded for it.

If another team had gotten the SoCon's auto-bid, Chattanooga almost certainly would have still made the playoffs, as the Mocs are 9-3 and ranked No. 8. No other team in the conference deserved an auto bid though. With powerhouses Georgia Southern and Appalachian State off to the FBS level, sometimes-contender Wofford having a mediocre 6-5 season, and last year's playoff team Furman suffering a disappointing 3-9 season this year, the only SoCon teams even in the discussion for an at-large bid were 7-4 Samford and 7-5 Western Carolina. Neither of the two had resumes that matched up favorably with the other bubble teams' though.

So while it would have been easy for the committee to extend an at-large bid to one or both of them in order to keep up the SoCon tradition, it wouldn't have been right. That the committee avoided this possible pitfall should be applauded.

We've saved the committee's biggest mistake for last. There were several reasons why the Bengals should have been included in the playoffs, and very few reasons why they should not. Yet the committee left them out. Let's take a look at all of the things the committee somehow overlooked.

First off, there's the fact that the 2014 Idaho State Bengals make for a great story. The Bengals hadn't had a winning season since 2003, and had annually been one of the very worst teams in the entire FCS for much of the last decade. Suddenly, they are contending for playoff bids and conference titles. As mentioned in the Montana slide, the FCS playoff committee is known to make playoff decisions that benefit the FCS as a whole, especially ones that have compelling storylines and make for good television. No other FCS team had a better storyline this season than ISU. While that alone wouldn't necessarily mandate their inclusion, it is a factor that the committee usually gives strong consideration to, making it confusing that they seem to not have considered it for Idaho State this season.

There are also the statistics. Stats always wind up playing a factor in playoff selection, so it would be expected that they would in Idaho State's case this season. The Bengals are first in the FCS in passing offense this season and second in total offense. They are lead by QB Justin Arias, a Walter Payton Award candidate and the leading passer in the FCS. ISU doesn't just have a somewhat good offense, they have one of the very best this season in the FCS. Usually, such stats would immediately give a team in the discussion for the playoffs an at-large bid. The FCS wants exciting football, so they usually wouldn't leave out the top qualified offense available (Yale led the FCS in total offense, but as an Ivy League team does not participate in the playoffs). Yet that's exactly what the committee did to Idaho State.

Perhaps most importantly, there's a close look at their record. The Bengals went 8-4, with an overall record similar to many of the teams who got at-large bids. If we take a close look at those losses, we see that two of them are to bowl-eligible FBS teams Utah and Utah State. The other two are to playoff teams Eastern Washington and Montana State, by a combined total of eight points. Few of the other at-large teams have such close margins of loss this season, which immediately should place Idaho State ahead of them.

Let's look at the reasons working against the Bengals this season. One is that two of their wins were against Division II teams. That however, is negated by the fact that two of their losses are to FBS teams. Another is that they did not have a win over a playoff team this season. This is perhaps the only legitimate thing ISU has going against them. However, there are other teams who received an at-large bid who also had that working against them, so we can see that it wasn't a disqualifying factor.

The last factor, unfortunately for Bengals' fans, is probably the one that most worked against them, even though it shouldn't be. Due to their long history recently as a cupcake, their fanbase is not as large this season as many of the at-large teams, and the program does not have as stellar a reputation. Attendance increased throughout the season, but was still below average for teams that had the type of season that ISU did. As mentioned previously, that's a factor that the FCS is known to take into account. However, the aformentioned great storyline would seem to make up for this as far as these types of factors are concerned.

Overall, the reasons why ISU should have been included in the playoffs are more numerous and more powerful than the reasons why they shouldn't have. From a neutral perspective, their resume is hands-down more impressive than a sizable chunk of the teams that received at-large bids. The committee owes Idaho State an apology, as their omission was the one truly indefensible decision the committee made. Predictable perhaps, given the Bengals' long-entrenched reputation as a bottom-dweller, but still indefensible.