Quick reminder this is as of week 9 not a projection!
If you’re new here start here: (Otherwise jump right into the figures)
There’s been a lot made of the quality of polls in the FCS sphere lately and with the playoff committee top 10 poll coming back we are only a few months away from someone taking issue with it. So what if we tried to do something that was done before that was actually good but was a scape goat for bigger issues? The BCS was never the problem. Having a 2 team playoff was. The computers were often the scape goats for the small field plus the fact that often the human polls that made up 2/3 of the BCS were to blame for the unpopular results. (Computers would’ve had Alabama-Cincinnati for the title game in 09 in stead of Alabama-Texas and LSU-Oklahoma State instead of LSU-Alabama in 2011. By far 2 of the most unpopular BCS Title matchups) 
Ladies and Gentlemen welcome to the CCS. Using the old system of compiling 2 human polls (we will use AFCA and STATS as that’s what the NCAA recognizes) along with the old BCS computer systems that track the FCS as well (all 6 are still active but only 3 individually rank FCS teams Sagarin, Massey, and Wolfe). Every week I’ll be posting the playoff picture, a full ranking of every team receiving votes in any of the 3 polls, and a playoff bracket that uses close to the NCAA criteria:
- Rematches are to be avoided in the first 2 rounds where possible that doesn’t interfere with seeding
- Conference opponents that didn’t play in the regular season must play where it doesn’t interfere with seeding
- All other matchups will actually be regionalized to minimize travel in the first 2 rounds excluding the above criteria obviously
- For now while the NCAA uses top 16 seeding my bracket will do so.
All Teams receiving points in any of the polls 
Current Playoff Field Based on the Rankings
Current playoff bracket based off the criteria and rankings.
Go Jacks!
Alex
