NCAA rules require 2 divisions of round robin play to host an exempt conference championship game (a game that doesn't count against the normal 12 game limits on number of games). It's doubtful that rule changes, but if the rule were modified to instead say any 12 team conference can host a conference championship game (no semi-finals still), which set-up would you prefer?

A) A divisional set-up like we are going to have with the champions of each division (or the team winning the tie-breaker in the event of a tie) facing off.

or

B) No divisions in football. Instead the conference would lock a few games per team and rotate the other games around. The top 2 teams at the end of the season (possibly going to tie-breakers again) would face off in the CCG.

If the conference were to consider #2, I think it would probably look a lot like this:

1. 9 game conference schedule still (10 might work better; but wouldn't be considered)
2. Everyone gets 3 locked games a year. The other 6 rotate. That means playing 3 teams 100% of the time and the other 10, 60% of the time.
3. Teams with the best two records go to the CCG (with a plethora of tie breakers).

I put three games locked games because I think that’s what the Big Ten would want to preserve the vast majority of games they or the schools care most about. They’d look something like this:

Wisconsin: Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota
Iowa: Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota
Nebraska: Wisconsin, Iowa, Rutgers
Minnesota: Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois
Michigan State: Michigan, Northwestern, Indiana
Penn State: Ohio State, Rutgers, Maryland
Rutgers: Penn State, Maryland, Nebraska
Maryland: Penn State, Rutgers, Purdue
Indiana: Purdue, Northwestern, Michigan State
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Maryland
Illinois: Northwestern, Purdue, Ohio State
Northwestern: Purdue, Illinois, Michigan State

The only ones there that aren’t rivalries, trophy games, or border games that make sense are a) Michigan State-Northwestern, b) Nebraska and Rutgers, c) Maryland and Purdue. Michigan State-Northwestern is a game Michigan State would like anyway (they’ve expressed a desire to play in Chicago). The other two are pretty random, but Nebraska gives the conference another big name close to New York every year. Meanwhile the most significant game I see missing from that list is probably Nebraska/Minnesota which I don’t think either side will miss a lot (Minnesota would choose the other 3 first and while Nebraska has history with Minnesota, it was long ago and not something they are going to miss having every year).

Advantages of Divisions:
1. Smaller set of teams competing with might increase rivalries (only directly competing with 6 teams instead of 13 for most the season).
2. Divisional crown itself might someday be something people care a lot about.
3. Strength of schedule differences an issue, but minimized a little thanks go all divisional opponents being the same.

Advantages of No Divisions:
1. Conference feels more united and less like 2 halfs.
2. Play most teams more often. With divisions, Indiana/Purdue will play other division 29% of the time and everyone else will play rest of other division 45% of the time. Without divisions, you never play anyone less than 60% of the time.
3. Rivalries a little better preserved. Little Brown Jug in particular saved in this set-up.
4. No risk of uneven division/NCAA sanctions allowing a team too far back in the conference standings making the CCG and with a good game becoming conference champs. This has happened a lot in CCGs because one division has been a lot stronger at the top or because dominant team in other division was on NCAA sanctions. Of particular note, in the last two years we've had 5-4 ULCA and 4-4 Wisconsin (conference standings) make CCGs.

You put a lot of thought and time into this, especially with the preserved match ups part.

For 14 teams I actually like it. I like it better than divisions. I dont think it will happen but I do like it.

The big disadvantage of the non-divisional system is that it violates NCAA rules, and so would require a rule change.

Remember that the divisional playoff game was never intended to be for the big power conferences. The original purpose was to allow smaller conferences that struggled with the cost of football team travel to set up divisions with lower travel costs and then have one game decide between division champions. After all, football teams are a lot bigger than other sports teams, and looking at it from the perspective of a school that subsidizes its football program, a hotel stay for the entire football team costs a lot more than a hotel stay for the entire basketball team.

The "extra" game was between two successful teams, and if held on campus was likely to sell out, so a share of the gate for the visiting division champion could be used to fund its travel costs.

But there wasn't ever a prohibition on the big power conferences using it, so that when the SEC went to a CCG, they had the inside track, defending an existing NCAA bylaw and their opponents were faced with getting a rule change to disallow the SEC from doing something smaller divisions had long been allowed to do, and failed in their effort to prevent the SEC from doing that.

That failure to get the rule rewritten to outlaw the power conferences using it does not mean that it will be easy to change the current rule to allow the power conferences to set up a CCG based on however they want to pick the top two.

And until that rule is changed, then the Big Ten can only have a CCG as a 13th game if it is between the division champions of two divisions, with all members of each division playing a full divisional round robin schedule.

Well it just so happens that we are in times now with more talk than ever about shifts within the NCAA or even defections from it. So while such a move would require rule changes, conferences seem to have more leverage than ever on the NCAA now.

The NCAA proposed the recruiting rule changes not to have a heavier hand of control but because slowly they are loosening the reins of control that they have.

(06-15-2013 05:58 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Well it just so happens that we are in times now with more talk than ever about shifts within the NCAA or even defections from it. So while such a move would require rule changes, conferences seem to have more leverage than ever on the NCAA now.

The NCAA proposed the recruiting rule changes not to have a heavier hand of control but because slowly they are loosening the reins of control that they have.

The Big12 has made noise about allowing conferences to determine for themselves who goes to a CCG ... but there's a difference between talk about the Power5 schools wanting something and actually getting the rest of the NCAA membership to go along with it.

And this is an area where the last big change did not actually involve any change at all in existing NCAA rules, but rather taking advance of an existing rule originally intended for the more limited seasons of Div2 and Div1 FCS.

(06-14-2013 03:45 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  NCAA rules require 2 divisions of round robin play to host an exempt conference championship game (a game that doesn't count against the normal 12 game limits on number of games). It's doubtful that rule changes, but if the rule were modified to instead say any 12 team conference can host a conference championship game (no semi-finals still), which set-up would you prefer?

A) A divisional set-up like we are going to have with the champions of each division (or the team winning the tie-breaker in the event of a tie) facing off.

or

B) No divisions in football. Instead the conference would lock a few games per team and rotate the other games around. The top 2 teams at the end of the season (possibly going to tie-breakers again) would face off in the CCG.

If the conference were to consider #2, I think it would probably look a lot like this:

1. 9 game conference schedule still (10 might work better; but wouldn't be considered)
2. Everyone gets 3 locked games a year. The other 6 rotate. That means playing 3 teams 100% of the time and the other 10, 60% of the time.
3. Teams with the best two records go to the CCG (with a plethora of tie breakers).

I put three games locked games because I think that’s what the Big Ten would want to preserve the vast majority of games they or the schools care most about. They’d look something like this:

Wisconsin: Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota
Iowa: Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota
Nebraska: Wisconsin, Iowa, Rutgers
Minnesota: Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois
Michigan State: Michigan, Northwestern, Indiana
Penn State: Ohio State, Rutgers, Maryland
Rutgers: Penn State, Maryland, Nebraska
Maryland: Penn State, Rutgers, Purdue
Indiana: Purdue, Northwestern, Michigan State
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Maryland
Illinois: Northwestern, Purdue, Ohio State
Northwestern: Purdue, Illinois, Michigan State

The only ones there that aren’t rivalries, trophy games, or border games that make sense are a) Michigan State-Northwestern, b) Nebraska and Rutgers, c) Maryland and Purdue. Michigan State-Northwestern is a game Michigan State would like anyway (they’ve expressed a desire to play in Chicago). The other two are pretty random, but Nebraska gives the conference another big name close to New York every year. Meanwhile the most significant game I see missing from that list is probably Nebraska/Minnesota which I don’t think either side will miss a lot (Minnesota would choose the other 3 first and while Nebraska has history with Minnesota, it was long ago and not something they are going to miss having every year).

Advantages of Divisions:
1. Smaller set of teams competing with might increase rivalries (only directly competing with 6 teams instead of 13 for most the season).
2. Divisional crown itself might someday be something people care a lot about.
3. Strength of schedule differences an issue, but minimized a little thanks go all divisional opponents being the same.

Advantages of No Divisions:
1. Conference feels more united and less like 2 halfs.
2. Play most teams more often. With divisions, Indiana/Purdue will play other division 29% of the time and everyone else will play rest of other division 45% of the time. Without divisions, you never play anyone less than 60% of the time.
3. Rivalries a little better preserved. Little Brown Jug in particular saved in this set-up.
4. No risk of uneven division/NCAA sanctions allowing a team too far back in the conference standings making the CCG and with a good game becoming conference champs. This has happened a lot in CCGs because one division has been a lot stronger at the top or because dominant team in other division was on NCAA sanctions. Of particular note, in the last two years we've had 5-4 ULCA and 4-4 Wisconsin (conference standings) make CCGs.

Huge fan of the no divisions idea. You preserve the most important rivalries and/or most lucrative TV games while making sure everyone plays each other fairly often.

(06-15-2013 03:45 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The big disadvantage of the non-divisional system is that it violates NCAA rules, and so would require a rule change.

Remember that the divisional playoff game was never intended to be for the big power conferences. The original purpose was to allow smaller conferences that struggled with the cost of football team travel to set up divisions with lower travel costs and then have one game decide between division champions. After all, football teams are a lot bigger than other sports teams, and looking at it from the perspective of a school that subsidizes its football program, a hotel stay for the entire football team costs a lot more than a hotel stay for the entire basketball team.

The "extra" game was between two successful teams, and if held on campus was likely to sell out, so a share of the gate for the visiting division champion could be used to fund its travel costs.

But there wasn't ever a prohibition on the big power conferences using it, so that when the SEC went to a CCG, they had the inside track, defending an existing NCAA bylaw and their opponents were faced with getting a rule change to disallow the SEC from doing something smaller divisions had long been allowed to do, and failed in their effort to prevent the SEC from doing that.

That failure to get the rule rewritten to outlaw the power conferences using it does not mean that it will be easy to change the current rule to allow the power conferences to set up a CCG based on however they want to pick the top two.

And until that rule is changed, then the Big Ten can only have a CCG as a 13th game if it is between the division champions of two divisions, with all members of each division playing a full divisional round robin schedule.

You are definitely right and this thread is hypothetical. The rules with the CCG have proven remarkably stable despite most power conferences at points wanting them altered.

That said, I could see at least a look through them in the future if the power conference are united for it (probably won't be, but ACC and SEC would benefit more than the Big Ten given they only have 8 game schedules and everyone has a locked crossover).

why the hell would maryland care about playing purdue?

(06-18-2013 09:32 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  why the hell would maryland care about playing purdue?

No reason at all. I was going for as realistic a senario as I could get. Protecting all the big rivalries/game I think the conference would insist being played required 3 locked teams. After all rivalries/geographically friendly games were filled there were 6 teams left needing one more team. They were Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue, Nebraska, Michigan State, and Northwestern. I put Northwestern and Michigan State together since Michigan State has talked about wanting games in Chicago before. The other two were almost completely random, but I put Nebraska with Rutgers to put another big name close to New York which left Maryland and Purdue.

On 2nd thought though, you could just let those 6 teams have only 2 locked opponents and rotate a little more amount those other 5.

I don't see any reason why every school needs three locked games just because some schools require three locked games.

Indeed, with 9 conference games per season and 13 opponents to play, each school can play five other schools four times each in four years and eight schools two times each in four years, and then at the end of four years mix up the five "every year" schools.

The difference between locked schools and unlocked schools would be which schools are available to be mixed up, and it would be entirely workable for some schools to have three locked rivals and some schools to have two.

If the conference went this direction, to keep scheduling simple, I think there is a decent chance they'd give everyone the same number of games. If not though, I would be they'd unlock Ohio State-Illionis and Michigan State-Indiana (both are trophy games, but neither were played 100% of the time in the 11 team conference era and neither are hugely important to most fans).

Actually that might be the best way to do it. That would mean 4 teams (Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota) would have 3 locked teams and the other 10 would only have 2. The math on how often teams would play others would vary from team to team here (given different number of locked games and fact some teams have locked games against teams with 3 locked games). For the teams that don't have a locked game with any of those 4, the frequency of play would look like this if I did the math right:

2 locked games: 100%
Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota: 60%
Remaining 7 teams: 66% of the time

That's not as high as the 75% of the time we were used to before going to 12 teams, but it wouldn't be bad.

(06-20-2013 12:38 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  If the conference went this direction, to keep scheduling simple, I think there is a decent chance they'd give everyone the same number of games.

Keeping scheduling simple requires locking the same number of games over a two year period ~ 3 for a 16 game schedule, 5 for an 18 game schedule.

At the level of the actual effort spent scheduling games for real, there's only a negligible difference between locking the same number of games over the longer term or not.