+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: Suggested rule change regarding conference scheduling and championship options (/thread-745102.html)
Suggested rule change regarding conference scheduling and championship options - ken d - 08-13-2015 09:44 AM
Currently under consideration by the NCAA are changes to the current scheduling rules which allow conferences with 12 or more teams to stage a single championship game pitting their two division winners, and require that each division play a full round robin.
I have a few suggestions, as follows.
Conferences would be free to organize into divisions or not, and to determine their conference schedules without restriction.
Conferences may elect to allow their members to schedule one preseason game against an FCS team in week zero which does not count against their 12 permitted games. This game is unofficial, and doesn’t count in any standings or statistics.
If this option is chosen, conference teams can’t schedule an FCS team in the regular season. If it’s not chosen, then conference teams may schedule FCS teams during the season which count against their 12 permitted games, and count one FCS win toward bowl eligibility. This is a conference option, not an individual school option.
Conferences with 8-9 football members:
Must play a full round robin league schedule, and may not also hold a conference championship game.
With 10-15 members:
May either play a full round robin schedule with no championship game or, with less than a full round robin schedule, have a single championship game, with participants chosen at discretion of the conference.
With 16 or more members:
May have championship playoff of up to two games with participants chosen at the discretion of the conference.
All conference championships must be decided by December 7th.
Thoughts?
RE: Suggested rule change regarding conference scheduling and championship options - johnbragg - 08-13-2015 09:57 AM
(08-13-2015 09:44 AM)ken d Wrote: Currently under consideration by the NCAA are changes to the current scheduling rules which allow conferences with 12 or more teams to stage a single championship game pitting their two division winners, and require that each division play a full round robin.
I have a few suggestions, as follows.
Conferences would be free to organize into divisions or not, and to determine their conference schedules without restriction.
Conferences would vote yes to this.
Quote:Conferences may elect to allow their members to schedule one preseason game against an FCS team in week zero which does not count against their 12 permitted games. This game is unofficial, and doesn’t count in any standings or statistics.
One more game = more tickets sold, very popular. Replacing an FCS game with an FBS game (so you need 6 actual FBS wins) will meet some opposition--figure each conference has one or two less bowl-eligible teams, you're killing off 5-6 bowls (and getting a handful of ADs and coaches fired every year for not bowling)
[/quote].
Conferences with 8-9 football members:
Must play a full round robin league schedule, and may not also hold a conference championship game.[/quote]
I don't see much support for that. It doesn't fry the SEC's or Big Ten's bacon, and it could present future problems for the Big 12 or a G5 conference. It may be fair in teh abstract, but it serves no one's interests.
Quote:With 10-15 members:
May either play a full round robin schedule with no championship game or, with less than a full round robin schedule, have a single championship game, with participants chosen at discretion of the conference.
Why not allow round-robin AND a CCG? If you're changing rules that would primarily benefit the Big 12, why not pass the rule they actually want?
Quote:With 16 or more members:
May have championship playoff of up to two games with participants chosen at the discretion of the conference.
And we're off to the races for another round of realignment, adding two valuable semifinal games that will draw big TV ratings and command big rights fees.
Based on that, everyone who is a poaching target (so everyone but the B1G, SEC and PAC) is going to vote "no" on semifinals.
RE: Suggested rule change regarding conference scheduling and championship options - ohio1317 - 08-13-2015 09:59 AM
I like most of it. I know they are popular here, but I think semi-finals are dead on arrival for the time being though. The presidents do not like to have to constantly consider realignment and a rule change that allowed semi-finals would definitely encourage another round. It would also be highly unpopular among any conference that worried it would be raided as a result and there are more of those than those doing the raiding.
The even bigger deal though is that there too much pressure right now on treating student athletes as employees. The lawsuit/fundamental changes to the system threatened from that are enormous and adding another game, especially challenging game between high level teams will make things harder to defend for the colleges. They ended up adding another game at the national level given the "BCS fatigue" that always challenged them, but that public pressure really isn't there now and the push from athletes has increased a lot in the past few seasons.
I like the idea of an FCS scrimmage (either the week before or 2 weeks before the year to allow for all teams to schedule one). That said, for similar reasons as above, I don't see it happening.
Edit: I do agree that if you are going to allow CCG with 10-11 teams, then no reason to say you can't just for having round robin play. While I think round robin play and no CCG is actually the best set-up of any conference, it's still better to have round robin play and a CCG than no round robin play and a CCG, so I wouldn't want to punish conferences for having it.
RE: Suggested rule change regarding conference scheduling and championship options - Hokie Mark - 08-13-2015 11:01 AM
I'm with you up to that rule for 16 teams or more. Putting a minimum which is greater than any current conference has will encourage expansion/realignment, which I don't think is something the NCAA should be promoting. The 12-team CCG rule did that, and we see what happened.
RE: Suggested rule change regarding conference scheduling and championship options - 10thMountain - 08-13-2015 11:32 AM
I think most everyone likes the idea of making divisions optional and conference scheduling left to the conferences.
Now I don't know if there is much support for removing the 12 member minimum since that purely benefits the B12 and no one else
RE: Suggested rule change regarding conference scheduling and championship options - goofus - 08-13-2015 12:19 PM
(08-13-2015 11:32 AM)10thMountain Wrote: I think most everyone likes the idea of making divisions optional and conference scheduling left to the conferences.
Now I don't know if there is much support for removing the 12 member minimum since that purely benefits the B12 and no one else
In addition to a minimum number of members rule, there may also be a minimum number of conference games need to play.
Can BYU join Big 12 football only and play no conference games and still be elligible for the CCG . I guess if the Big 12 agrees to that, then thats ok. I guess you could argue conferences can police that themselves because the Big 12 would never agree to that.
But other cases are not so clear cut. The ACC might decide its ok to let Notre Dame play in the CCG even though they only play 5 conference games. I guess you can argue thats the ACC business and what other conferences think does not matter, but somehow I think conferences will push for some uniformity in the rules.
RE: Suggested rule change regarding conference scheduling and championship options - MplsBison - 08-13-2015 01:41 PM
(08-13-2015 09:44 AM)ken d Wrote: Currently under consideration by the NCAA are changes to the current scheduling rules which allow conferences with 12 or more teams to stage a single championship game pitting their two division winners, and require that each division play a full round robin.
I have a few suggestions, as follows.
Conferences would be free to organize into divisions or not, and to determine their conference schedules without restriction.
Conferences may elect to allow their members to schedule one preseason game against an FCS team in week zero which does not count against their 12 permitted games. This game is unofficial, and doesn’t count in any standings or statistics.
If this option is chosen, conference teams can’t schedule an FCS team in the regular season. If it’s not chosen, then conference teams may schedule FCS teams during the season which count against their 12 permitted games, and count one FCS win toward bowl eligibility. This is a conference option, not an individual school option.
Conferences with 8-9 football members:
Must play a full round robin league schedule, and may not also hold a conference championship game.
With 10-15 members:
May either play a full round robin schedule with no championship game or, with less than a full round robin schedule, have a single championship game, with participants chosen at discretion of the conference.
With 16 or more members:
May have championship playoff of up to two games with participants chosen at the discretion of the conference.
All conference championships must be decided by December 7th.
Thoughts?
I'd go with something like this:
- conference must have a minimum of 8 teams, no maximum
- a minimum of eight conference games must be played by every conference member, no maximum, unless the conference has eight teams in which case the minimum number of conference games is seven
- no conference team may play another conference team more than once in the regular season
- every conference team must play every other conference team in a timely manner (ie, you can't have team X avoid team Y for 10 years ... not exactly sure how to word this most generally)
- divisions are not required, but if used then all teams must be in a division and any division may not have less than six members
- it is NOT required that division teams play a round robin schedule within the division
- a Conference Championship Game may be played after the last week of the regular season, if the conference chooses
-- if divisions are not used, then the conference may select any two teams for the CCG
-- if divisions are used, then the CCG teams must be division champions (per tie breakers, if needed)
RE: Suggested rule change regarding conference scheduling and championship options - Chappy - 08-13-2015 09:12 PM
(08-13-2015 01:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote: - conference must have a minimum of 8 teams, no maximum
- a minimum of eight conference games must be played by every conference member, no maximum
- no conference team may play another conference team more than once in the regular season
An 8-team conference would not be able to have 8 conference games per team without teams playing each other more than once.
RE: Suggested rule change regarding conference scheduling and championship options - Attackcoog - 08-13-2015 09:44 PM
(08-13-2015 01:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:(08-13-2015 09:44 AM)ken d Wrote: Currently under consideration by the NCAA are changes to the current scheduling rules which allow conferences with 12 or more teams to stage a single championship game pitting their two division winners, and require that each division play a full round robin.
I have a few suggestions, as follows.
Conferences would be free to organize into divisions or not, and to determine their conference schedules without restriction.
Conferences may elect to allow their members to schedule one preseason game against an FCS team in week zero which does not count against their 12 permitted games. This game is unofficial, and doesn’t count in any standings or statistics.
If this option is chosen, conference teams can’t schedule an FCS team in the regular season. If it’s not chosen, then conference teams may schedule FCS teams during the season which count against their 12 permitted games, and count one FCS win toward bowl eligibility. This is a conference option, not an individual school option.
Conferences with 8-9 football members:
Must play a full round robin league schedule, and may not also hold a conference championship game.
With 10-15 members:
May either play a full round robin schedule with no championship game or, with less than a full round robin schedule, have a single championship game, with participants chosen at discretion of the conference.
With 16 or more members:
May have championship playoff of up to two games with participants chosen at the discretion of the conference.
All conference championships must be decided by December 7th.
Thoughts?
I'd go with something like this:
- conference must have a minimum of 8 teams, no maximum
- a minimum of eight conference games must be played by every conference member, no maximum
- no conference team may play another conference team more than once in the regular season
- every conference team must play every other conference team in a timely manner (ie, you can't have team X avoid team Y for 10 years ... not exactly sure how to word this most generally)
- divisions are not required, but if used then all teams must be in a division and any division may not have less than six members
- it is NOT required that division teams play a round robin schedule within the division
- a Conference Championship Game may be played after the last week of the regular season, if the conference chooses
-- if divisions are not used, then the conference may select any two teams for the CCG
-- if divisions are used, then the CCG teams must be division champions (per tie breakers, if needed)
Not sure why you want to insist that each division have 6 teams. In a 15 team conference, 3 5-team divisions might work better. Frankly, Im for allowing any system a conference wants. If conferences want to rig schedules---fine---let them do it. It wont last long once the selection committee catches onto the purposely watered down schedules. First time a school is passed over for the playoff because its schedule was artificially weakened the practice will end.
RE: Suggested rule change regarding conference scheduling and championship options - RutgersMike - 08-13-2015 10:57 PM
I am still in favor where a conference still needs 12 teams to have a conference championship game. However, I would allow conferences to select their finalists. Whether they choose to have division winners or the top two in the rankings is up to them.
RE: Suggested rule change regarding conference scheduling and championship options - DavidSt - 08-14-2015 01:29 AM
(08-13-2015 09:59 AM)ohio1317 Wrote: I like most of it. I know they are popular here, but I think semi-finals are dead on arrival for the time being though. The presidents do not like to have to constantly consider realignment and a rule change that allowed semi-finals would definitely encourage another round. It would also be highly unpopular among any conference that worried it would be raided as a result and there are more of those than those doing the raiding.
The even bigger deal though is that there too much pressure right now on treating student athletes as employees. The lawsuit/fundamental changes to the system threatened from that are enormous and adding another game, especially challenging game between high level teams will make things harder to defend for the colleges. They ended up adding another game at the national level given the "BCS fatigue" that always challenged them, but that public pressure really isn't there now and the push from athletes has increased a lot in the past few seasons.
I like the idea of an FCS scrimmage (either the week before or 2 weeks before the year to allow for all teams to schedule one). That said, for similar reasons as above, I don't see it happening.
Edit: I do agree that if you are going to allow CCG with 10-11 teams, then no reason to say you can't just for having round robin play. While I think round robin play and no CCG is actually the best set-up of any conference, it's still better to have round robin play and a CCG than no round robin play and a CCG, so I wouldn't want to punish conferences for having it.
I would like to make a new rules change as well.
1:Conferences can not decide who is in the category of schools who is SOS. That means a neutral body will decide who are strong teams. That means Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Kansas, Iowa State, Northwestern and Colorado would count as strong teams. Neither would Army.
Schools like East Carolina, Cincinnati, Boise State, BYU, UNR, Fresno State, Air Force, Navy and some others would count as being strong teams. Eastern Washington, North Dakota State and some others in FCS would also count as strong teams to play.
2.Reclassify schools of FBS, FCS and D2. Eastern Michigan and Akron, you get demoted to FCS. North Dakota State, James Madison, Jacksonville State, Eastern Washington, South Dakota State, Youngstown State? Congrates. You are new FBS teams. North Alabama, Valdosta State, Colorado State-Pueblo, Mankato State, Sioux Falls, Azusa Pacific, Minn-Duluth, Tarleton State and West Texas A&M? Congrates, you are new FCS schools.
3.Realignment situation. The P5 must now look at any G5 candidates for expansion with. Raiding other P5 conferences must now be looked like frowned upon because you would be looked as destroyers of college football, and interfering with other conferences at the P5 level. PAC 12, Big 10, SEC and ACC are all guilty on this part. Let the conference fight their own battles in house, and when schools leave on their own to be Independent? Than, they are free game to get. Do not add schools who are still a member of a conference.
RE: Suggested rule change regarding conference scheduling and championship options - otown - 08-14-2015 08:35 AM
(08-13-2015 11:32 AM)10thMountain Wrote: Now I don't know if there is much support for removing the 12 member minimum since that purely benefits the B12 and no one else
100 percent correct. Bottom line, there are only 4 CFP slots and 5 conferences in contention. Ohio State doesn't get into the playoffs last year if big 12 got a championship game and the big 12 champion got another high profile quality win.
Big 10 knows that. SEC, PAC, and ACC knows that they very well could have been in the same position at big 10 last year.
RE: Suggested rule change regarding conference scheduling and championship options - adcorbett - 08-14-2015 09:27 AM
(08-14-2015 08:35 AM)otown Wrote:(08-13-2015 11:32 AM)10thMountain Wrote: Now I don't know if there is much support for removing the 12 member minimum since that purely benefits the B12 and no one else
100 percent correct. Bottom line, there are only 4 CFP slots and 5 conferences in contention. Ohio State doesn't get into the playoffs last year if big 12 got a championship game and the big 12 champion got another high profile quality win.
I don't really know if that is true. For one, Ohio State had a much better OOC schedule then either TCU or Baylor. They also played no FCS school, which raised the bar even more. Finally in nearly all set ups, Baylor and TCU would have been in the same division. So their opponent in the Big XII CCG would have either been Kansas St (the very team Baylor beat the last week of the season that caused them to not advance), or a team not currently in the Big 12. I don't think it changes the final outcome myself.
RE: Suggested rule change regarding conference scheduling and championship options - Bearcats#1 - 08-14-2015 09:43 AM
(08-13-2015 10:57 PM)RutgersMike Wrote: I am still in favor where a conference still needs 12 teams to have a conference championship game. However, I would allow conferences to select their finalists. Whether they choose to have division winners or the top two in the rankings is up to them.
agree
RE: Suggested rule change regarding conference scheduling and championship options - ken d - 08-14-2015 10:09 AM
(08-14-2015 09:27 AM)adcorbett Wrote:(08-14-2015 08:35 AM)otown Wrote:(08-13-2015 11:32 AM)10thMountain Wrote: Now I don't know if there is much support for removing the 12 member minimum since that purely benefits the B12 and no one else
100 percent correct. Bottom line, there are only 4 CFP slots and 5 conferences in contention. Ohio State doesn't get into the playoffs last year if big 12 got a championship game and the big 12 champion got another high profile quality win.
I don't really know if that is true. For one, Ohio State had a much better OOC schedule then either TCU or Baylor. They also played no FCS school, which raised the bar even more. Finally in nearly all set ups, Baylor and TCU would have been in the same division. So their opponent in the Big XII CCG would have either been Kansas St (the very team Baylor beat the last week of the season that caused them to not advance), or a team not currently in the Big 12. I don't think it changes the final outcome myself.
And even without a CCG, TCU played a tougher schedule than Ohio State and performed better against that schedule than the Buckeyes did against theirs. Of course, the question that will never be answered is: If TCU was in fact one of the four best teams last year, which of the semifinalists was the fifth? Based on schedules and performance, you could make a better case that Florida State, not Ohio State, was not one of the four best.
If the Seminoles had been left out of the playoff in favor of TCU, would the internet argument have been that the reason was because they played a weak schedule and barely squeaked by in their CCG, while TCU didn't have to expose themselves to the risk of losing? The 2014 season was an anomaly, from which no valid conclusions can be drawn.
RE: Suggested rule change regarding conference scheduling and championship options - adcorbett - 08-14-2015 10:13 AM
(08-14-2015 10:09 AM)ken d Wrote:(08-14-2015 09:27 AM)adcorbett Wrote: I don't really know if that is true. For one, Ohio State had a much better OOC schedule then either TCU or Baylor. They also played no FCS school, which raised the bar even more. Finally in nearly all set ups, Baylor and TCU would have been in the same division. So their opponent in the Big XII CCG would have either been Kansas St (the very team Baylor beat the last week of the season that caused them to not advance), or a team not currently in the Big 12. I don't think it changes the final outcome myself.
And even without a CCG, TCU played a tougher schedule than Ohio State and performed better against that schedule than the Buckeyes did against theirs. Of course, the question that will never be answered is: If TCU was in fact one of the four best teams last year, which of the semifinalists was the fifth? Based on schedules and performance, you could make a better case that Florida State, not Ohio State, was not one of the four best.
If the Seminoles had been left out of the playoff in favor of TCU, would the internet argument have been that the reason was because they played a weak schedule and barely squeaked by in their CCG, while TCU didn't have to expose themselves to the risk of losing? The 2014 season was an anomaly, from which no valid conclusions can be drawn.
On what planet did Florida State play a weak schedule? They played and beat 12 P5 schools. Oregon beat ten. No one else beat more than 9. This is not even debatable. The only reason FSU slipped from the top spot was because of how they played, not the schedule.
Here are some numbers for you. Counting only FBS schools, Ohio State's opponents' regular season record was 83-67. The teams they beat were 77-61. They played one P5 OOC, one road game OOC, and played Cincinnati OOC, and no 1AA schools. Florida State's opponents' were 78-65 (they beat them all). They played 3 P5 bowl teams OOC (though none were exceptional teams), and a 1AA team. TCU's opponents were 65-67. Now include only the teams they beat and they are 54-66. they played one P5 OOC, one 1AA school, and a one win team. And for the record Baylor's opponents' were 62-69, with the teams they beat coming in at 55-64. OOC they played no P5 schools, a one win team, a 1AA school, and a 5 win MAC team.
In terms of schedule strength, this is not even a discussion.
RE: Suggested rule change regarding conference scheduling and championship options - ken d - 08-14-2015 10:19 AM
(08-14-2015 09:43 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:(08-13-2015 10:57 PM)RutgersMike Wrote: I am still in favor where a conference still needs 12 teams to have a conference championship game. However, I would allow conferences to select their finalists. Whether they choose to have division winners or the top two in the rankings is up to them.
agree
Why 12, and not 11? Where is the logic in that? And if 11, why not 10? I believe the only logic behind this rule, if there is any, is that large conferences can't play round robin schedules without severely hurting their ability to play a decent OOC slate.
The fact is that 12 is the number, not because there is a reason why it should be, but just because that is how many there happened to be in a non-FBS conference when it asked the NCAA for permission to hold a CCG.
Some view this as trying to legislate a rule to benefit a single conference. I tend to view it as legislation to stop punishing a single conference by taking away their right to hold a CCG like their competitors by applying an arbitrary rule.
RE: Suggested rule change regarding conference scheduling and championship options - MplsBison - 08-14-2015 10:49 AM
(08-13-2015 09:12 PM)Chappy Wrote:(08-13-2015 01:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote: - conference must have a minimum of 8 teams, no maximum
- a minimum of eight conference games must be played by every conference member, no maximum
- no conference team may play another conference team more than once in the regular season
An 8-team conference would not be able to have 8 conference games per team without teams playing each other more than once.
Doh! Thanks! Edited.
RE: Suggested rule change regarding conference scheduling and championship options - MplsBison - 08-14-2015 10:52 AM
(08-13-2015 09:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:(08-13-2015 01:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:(08-13-2015 09:44 AM)ken d Wrote: Currently under consideration by the NCAA are changes to the current scheduling rules which allow conferences with 12 or more teams to stage a single championship game pitting their two division winners, and require that each division play a full round robin.
I have a few suggestions, as follows.
Conferences would be free to organize into divisions or not, and to determine their conference schedules without restriction.
Conferences may elect to allow their members to schedule one preseason game against an FCS team in week zero which does not count against their 12 permitted games. This game is unofficial, and doesn’t count in any standings or statistics.
If this option is chosen, conference teams can’t schedule an FCS team in the regular season. If it’s not chosen, then conference teams may schedule FCS teams during the season which count against their 12 permitted games, and count one FCS win toward bowl eligibility. This is a conference option, not an individual school option.
Conferences with 8-9 football members:
Must play a full round robin league schedule, and may not also hold a conference championship game.
With 10-15 members:
May either play a full round robin schedule with no championship game or, with less than a full round robin schedule, have a single championship game, with participants chosen at discretion of the conference.
With 16 or more members:
May have championship playoff of up to two games with participants chosen at the discretion of the conference.
All conference championships must be decided by December 7th.
Thoughts?
I'd go with something like this:
- conference must have a minimum of 8 teams, no maximum
- a minimum of eight conference games must be played by every conference member, no maximum
- no conference team may play another conference team more than once in the regular season
- every conference team must play every other conference team in a timely manner (ie, you can't have team X avoid team Y for 10 years ... not exactly sure how to word this most generally)
- divisions are not required, but if used then all teams must be in a division and any division may not have less than six members
- it is NOT required that division teams play a round robin schedule within the division
- a Conference Championship Game may be played after the last week of the regular season, if the conference chooses
-- if divisions are not used, then the conference may select any two teams for the CCG
-- if divisions are used, then the CCG teams must be division champions (per tie breakers, if needed)
Not sure why you want to insist that each division have 6 teams. In a 15 team conference, 3 5-team divisions might work better. Frankly, Im for allowing any system a conference wants. If conferences want to rig schedules---fine---let them do it. It wont last long once the selection committee catches onto the purposely watered down schedules. First time a school is passed over for the playoff because its schedule was artificially weakened the practice will end.
Nothing wrong with regulations. No need to let a conference rig its schedule, that's a waste of time.
Divisions should be an even split of the conference.
If you want to have weird "pods" or whatever, then just keep the conference division-less and schedule the teams however you'd like, provided that all teams play all other teams in a timely manner and the other criteria are satisfied.
RE: Suggested rule change regarding conference scheduling and championship options - ken d - 08-14-2015 11:05 AM
Why is it so important that every school play every other "in a timely manner"? Or that divisions be balanced, strength-wise?
If the guiding principle is that conferences, in accordance with the needs and desires of their members, should be able to decide for themselves how they organize and schedule, then dictating those two requirements violates that principle.