Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

wleakr · 04-17-2013 07:33 AM

(04-16-2013 06:02 PM)_sturt_ Wrote: That's a key difference. These playoff games inherently build into the schedule of the best of those two conferences three trampoline games at the end of a season... essentially, the effect of the Kent/NIU championship plus two.

Hmmm...I can see your point with the NIU/Kent game...that definitely helped boost NIU (with the help of a few other teams falling down) in the final polls, so maybe there is some merit for this idea...

BruceMcF · 04-18-2013 02:05 PM

(04-12-2013 07:16 PM)_sturt_ Wrote: Point well-taken. I believe you're probably correct that it might require some tweaking to that bylaw, but I don't see much resistance to it, unless it comes from AAC and MWC schools... what might be more contested is the idea of four non-division winners being part of it.

Don't forget that adding to the total number of allowed games on the schedule has always been a long and hard fought battle in the NCAA. The reason that the SEC was able to start a Conference Championship Game was that the rule was already written with an eye to FCS and below conferences. It was not originally intended to be used for top level football, and there was an effort to stop them from using it ... but they had the advantage of the rule already being in the books.

Now, the Big12 has put forward a proposal to relax the rule, but it seems unlikely that the change they are pushing for would allow it to be used cross conference.

And without the ability to have the CCG be used cross conference, the only way to apply your proposal would be to merge the two conferences. Which isn't going to happen.

Without the Cross Conference Championship Game, you don't have an eight team tournament, you have a four team tournament. So the CCG teams for each conference picked at the end of conference play in the third last week of the season. The second last week of the regular season, two division leaders play each other cross conference. Then either they cross over, or else the two winners play in the final week of the regular season and the two losers play a bronze medal game. Having winner v winner and loser v loser gives a 50:50 chance of the CCG the following week being a rematch, which is less than ideal.

But in any event, you have 11 teams in the MAC with their schedule bogged down by 11 CUSA teams, in order for 2 teams in the MAC to play a couple of bracket buster games before their CCG. That's not a good deal for the MAC. Playing mostly in-division rivalry games is a better way to spend the last week of the regular season.

_sturt_ · 04-18-2013 02:23 PM

(04-18-2013 02:05 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:
(04-12-2013 07:16 PM)_sturt_ Wrote: Point well-taken. I believe you're probably correct that it might require some tweaking to that bylaw, but I don't see much resistance to it, unless it comes from AAC and MWC schools... what might be more contested is the idea of four non-division winners being part of it.
(A) Don't forget that adding to the total number of allowed games on the schedule has always been a long and hard fought battle in the NCAA. The reason that the SEC was able to start a Conference Championship Game was that the rule was already written with an eye to FCS and below conferences. It was not originally intended to be used for top level football, and there was an effort to stop them from using it ... but they had the advantage of the rule already being in the books.

Now, the Big12 has put forward a proposal to relax the rule, but it seems unlikely that the change they are pushing for would allow it to be used cross conference.

And without the ability to have the CCG be used cross conference, the only way to apply your proposal would be to merge the two conferences. Which isn't going to happen.

Without the Cross Conference Championship Game, you don't have an eight team tournament, you have a four team tournament. So the CCG teams for each conference picked at the end of conference play in the third last week of the season. The second last week of the regular season, two division leaders play each other cross conference. Then either they cross over, or else the two winners play in the final week of the regular season and the two losers play a bronze medal game. Having winner v winner and loser v loser gives a 50:50 chance of the CCG the following week being a rematch, which is less than ideal.

But in any event, you have 11 teams in the MAC with their schedule bogged down by 11 CUSA teams, in order for 2 teams in the MAC to play a couple of bracket buster games before their CCG. That's not a good deal for the MAC. Playing mostly in-division rivalry games is a better way to spend the last week of the regular season.

A) Not sure where you're getting the idea that it means adding additional games... it's 10 games, plus 2 games... that's your regular season... plus 1 championship game.

B) The inter-conference round-robin games is a non-starter because they don't actually serve the purpose... you have to have a playoff so that one team emerges having the benefit of the three wins, or risk the likelihood that several teams end up 2-1 or 1-2.

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode Merits of a MAC-CUSA Alliance
Author	Message