(12-11-2014 01:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 11:59 AM)prp Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 11:47 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 11:17 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 04:40 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Plenty of conference championship games have been rematches. It is not a new concept.

The difference is here a rematch will be guaranteed. While rematches have happened, more often then not CCG's are not rematches. Here is a summary


Conf____ Rematches___ Pct
SEC____ 6 out of 23___ 26.1%
ACC____ 4 out of 10___ 40.0%
Pac12___ 3 out of 4____ 75.0%
Big12___ 5 out of 15___ 33.0%
BigTen__ 3 out of 4____ 75.0%
Total____21 out of 56__ 37.5%

The SEC will continue to have the lowest "rematch rate" as long as they play 8 conference games in a 14-team league. The odds of a rematch in any given year for them are 2 in 7, about 28%.

The Big Ten has the same odds as the SEC, as long as they continue to play 8 conference games, and the ACC is also in the same boat unless/until "deregulation" happens.

The Pac-12 odds of a rematch in any given year are 4 in 6, about 67%.

If the ACC gets permission to hold a title game without divisions, their odds of a rematch will be 8 in 13, about 62%. If they stick with divisions and with 8 conference games, then the odds of a rematch are the same as in the SEC.

Permanent crossover games skew the odds away from random chance somewhat.

The Big 10 will be going to 9 conference games in a few years so the odds will rise to about 43%. Also, the actual odds of a rematch would be a bit lower than the straight up calculations since playing head-to-head during the season would automatically give one of the teams a conference loss and thereby making it more difficult for the loser to reach the title game.

Another way of looking at it: You have a better chance of winning the division (and playing in the conference title game) if your cross-division opponents are weaker.

Like Missouri. They played the bottom 2 in the west. Overall, they played the bottom 7 teams in the conference and lost 34-0 to the only team in the top half they played.

(12-12-2014 10:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  Like Missouri. They played the bottom 2 in the west. Overall, they played the bottom 7 teams in the conference and lost 34-0 to the only team in the top half they played.

To that point... I did this chart a couple of years ago, with regards to SEC teams. The below are the SEC teams who were in "contention" for the BCS title shot going into the last few weeks of the season. Not all made the BCS CG, but these are the teams who had a "shot. If you will notice, with one exception, nearly every SEC team on this list, was aided by having a weak cross division schedule.


Note that only 4 teams TOTAL on this list played a conference foe cross division with a winning record. So yes in most cases who they played cross division directly affected their ability to get to the CCG.

(12-12-2014 11:46 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-12-2014 10:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  Like Missouri. They played the bottom 2 in the west. Overall, they played the bottom 7 teams in the conference and lost 34-0 to the only team in the top half they played.

To that point... I did this chart a couple of years ago, with regards to SEC teams. The below are the SEC teams who were in "contention" for the BCS title shot going into the last few weeks of the season. Not all made the BCS CG, but these are the teams who had a "shot. If you will notice, with one exception, nearly every SEC team on this list, was aided by having a weak cross division schedule.

[code]
Year Team OOC W L Cross W L Cross W L Cross W L
2006 Flor FSU 7 6 LSU* 11 2 Bama 6 7 Aub* 11 2
2007 LSU Vtech 11 3 Scar 6 6 Flor* 9 4 UK 8 5
2008 Flor Miami 7 6 LSU 8 5 Miss 9 4 Ark 5 7
2009 Flor FSU 7 6 LSU* 9 4 MsSt 5 7 Ark 8 5

I don't think any of these qualify as 'weak' cross-division schedules. Yes, 2006 Florida stands out as wickedly difficult, but the others look pretty darn tough.

So, why doesn't the Big 12 just tell the NCAA to pound sand, and just schedule a CCG without adding members? What are they going to do - kick them out of the NCAA?

(12-12-2014 12:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I don't think any of these qualify as 'weak' cross-division schedules. Yes, 2006 Florida stands out as wickedly difficult, but the others look pretty darn tough.

I meant "weak" because with the exception of 5 teams - LSU and Auburn in 2006, Florida in 2007, LSU in 2009, and Georgia in 2013 - they ALL had 0.500 or losing records in league play. Note that 3 of those teams were 5-3, only Auburn and LSU (06) were above 5-3. I listed total records above, but I put an asterick to teams with winning conference records. It is "weak" in terms of the topic at hand (I.e. potential rematches) as teams who won their divisions they more or less never faced contenders on the other side during the regular season. Note these were only "contending" teams, so for example a 9-4 S. Carolina team who won their division is not included.

And yes that Florida team in 2006 played a ridiculous league schedule.

(12-12-2014 12:14 PM)ken d Wrote:  So, why doesn't the Big 12 just tell the NCAA to pound sand, and just schedule a CCG without adding members? What are they going to do - kick them out of the NCAA?

That's a good point. The Al Davis method - move first and let others kvetch about it later - would probably work.

(12-12-2014 12:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-12-2014 12:14 PM)ken d Wrote:  So, why doesn't the Big 12 just tell the NCAA to pound sand, and just schedule a CCG without adding members? What are they going to do - kick them out of the NCAA?

That's a good point. The Al Davis method - move first and let others kvetch about it later - would probably work.

Right now, the NCAA is so scared the P5 will bolt, I can't imagine they'd risk drawing a line in the sand over this.

(12-12-2014 12:14 PM)ken d Wrote:  So, why doesn't the Big 12 just tell the NCAA to pound sand, and just schedule a CCG without adding members? What are they going to do - kick them out of the NCAA?

The MAC has technically been violating the CCG rule for a few years now with a 13 team conference. Officially, the rule requires the same number of teams in each division, but the NCAA has been letting them get away with it since 2007.

(12-12-2014 12:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-12-2014 12:14 PM)ken d Wrote:  So, why doesn't the Big 12 just tell the NCAA to pound sand, and just schedule a CCG without adding members? What are they going to do - kick them out of the NCAA?

That's a good point. The Al Davis method - move first and let others kvetch about it later - would probably work.

I would pay money to see that.

But you know, isn't that sort of what the MAC is doing? Because they host a CCG and don't have everyone play their division foes (the division with 7 teams skips a team).

But yeah, that would be quite funny to see it happen.

Edit: Sorry PRP didn't see that you had covered that.