(10-29-2016 08:37 AM)Scoochpooch Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 08:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It's a horrible idea. College football is built upon only getting one shot a year at every school on your schedule. It is notoriously difficult to get up for the same school twice if you've already beaten them.

L.S.U. should have never had to face Alabama again in the BCS after beating the Tide in Tuscaloosa. Auburn had to face Tennessee again in the SEC CCG in 2004 after beating them in the regular season. We won but the game was a lot closer than the first one. It hurt our chances to get into the BCS.

I think this whole idea is beyond stupid. They are potentially putting their true champion in jeopardy by having to play someone again in a danged if you win and damned if you don't scenario.

It's about money and nothing else.

I, along with many others didn't consider LSU OT win as an actual victory. It was basically a tie that was decided by a skills competition called CFB OT. Since there was no true winner they played again to correct outcome.

Pretty much just Bama fans. But, understand this, I despise college football overtimes as they are presently comported. The field goal is a gift by ball placement so if you have a great kicker what you suggest is absolutely true. You've just played 60 minutes of ball utilizing all team members on the field and now you basically turn it over to the kicker or the tallest wide receiver on the field.

I would prefer it if each school got the ball at the 50. Then they would actually have to earn 3 points, and sustain a drive in most cases to get 6 and a conversion. IMO that would still place the outcome more on the team.

Right now it is just a quick fix to get a winner.

So in that regard I agree. But, traditionally you shouldn't have to vanquish a foe twice to advance. If the present overtime is the norm then the best school may not advance, but rather the luckiest, or the one with the best kicker. But if that is the norm there is no reason whatsoever that you should have to play someone again. It's not traditional, it's not fair to the winner of the first contest, and it isn't appealing to most fans, just the ones of the school that gets the do over. I don't care who the schools are that were involved.

(10-29-2016 08:37 AM)Scoochpooch Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 08:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It's a horrible idea. College football is built upon only getting one shot a year at every school on your schedule. It is notoriously difficult to get up for the same school twice if you've already beaten them.

L.S.U. should have never had to face Alabama again in the BCS after beating the Tide in Tuscaloosa. Auburn had to face Tennessee again in the SEC CCG in 2004 after beating them in the regular season. We won but the game was a lot closer than the first one. It hurt our chances to get into the BCS.

I think this whole idea is beyond stupid. They are potentially putting their true champion in jeopardy by having to play someone again in a danged if you win and damned if you don't scenario.

It's about money and nothing else.

I, along with many others didn't consider LSU OT win as an actual victory. It was basically a tie that was decided by a skills competition called CFB OT. Since there was no true winner they played again to correct outcome.

Please. The game was at Alabama, which is worth at least 7 points right there. LSU obviously won the game, and it was dumb that they had to play them again in the title game.

The only practical, non-financial reason for a title game is to declare a winner on the field because there are too many teams in the conference to all play each other.

The SEC is not going to offer their schools for a rivalry week partnership. LSU-A&M and Arkansas-Mizzou are the new rivalries they're promoting. The Big XII is now susceptible to an absolutely meaningless rematch if the favorite goes down the week before, or arguably worse: the extra game is a loss and the conference plays itself out of the playoffs. The conference should have invited BYU and Colorado State. Colorado is home to a lot of Big XII alumni and they're investing in facilities.

(10-29-2016 01:37 PM)esayem Wrote:  The only practical, non-financial reason for a title game is to declare a winner on the field because there are too many teams in the conference to all play each other.

But the primary motivation for all conferences to have a title game is money. In that, the Big 12 is just like all the others.

No, that's not why the SEC did it in the first place. It was because they couldn't do a round robin with 12 members.

(10-29-2016 01:42 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  No, that's not why the SEC did it in the first place. It was because they couldn't do a round robin with 12 members.

We remember differently. It was for money and exposure. And did it ever work. The SEC's rise to the top conference dates from that decision.

No, there was no money back then. The original rule was written for the SEC at the time. Hence why it said 12 members.

And about the redundancy of a title game given full round-robin: Playing each team once isn't necessarily good enough to prove who is best, particularly if H2H is a tiebreaker, because in each matchup someone has HFA. That was the big problem with those who said Baylor was the Big 12 champ over TCU two years ago - winning by 3 points at home doesn't necessarily prove that.

A real round-robin requires two games between each team, home and away. Absent that, a champ game can improve our knowledge of who the top team is.

(10-29-2016 01:51 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  No, there was no money back then. The original rule was written for the SEC at the time. Hence why it said 12 members.

IIRC, the original rule was written in 1987 for another conference, maybe Division III. And also IIRC, the ability to hold a money-making title game was one of the motivations the SEC had to expand to 12. That is, they knew the rule existed before they expanded, and it played a role in their decision to expand, it wasn't something where they woke up and said "Oh, now we have 12 teams, we need a solution for this".

Getting to 12 was in part a means to an end, holding a title game, to boost the league.

http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/...ule-origin

(10-29-2016 01:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  And about the redundancy of a title game given full round-robin: Playing each team once isn't necessarily good enough to prove who is best, particularly if H2H is a tiebreaker, because in each matchup someone has HFA. That was the big problem with those who said Baylor was the Big 12 champ over TCU two years ago - winning by 3 points at home doesn't necessarily prove that.

A real round-robin requires two games between each team, home and away. Absent that, a champ game can improve our knowledge of who the top team is.

Rematches are still relatively new to college football. Every team should go into every game with the idea that this is their only chance to beat that opponent. It doesn't matter who would win 99/100 times, it only matter who wins that one time. That's why it's played!

(10-29-2016 04:22 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 01:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  And about the redundancy of a title game given full round-robin: Playing each team once isn't necessarily good enough to prove who is best, particularly if H2H is a tiebreaker, because in each matchup someone has HFA. That was the big problem with those who said Baylor was the Big 12 champ over TCU two years ago - winning by 3 points at home doesn't necessarily prove that.

A real round-robin requires two games between each team, home and away. Absent that, a champ game can improve our knowledge of who the top team is.

Rematches are still relatively new to college football. Every team should go into every game with the idea that this is their only chance to beat that opponent. It doesn't matter who would win 99/100 times, it only matter who wins that one time. That's why it's played!

That's the tradition, sure, but that doesn't make it the best way to do things. Duke and UNC play home and away in ACC basketball for a good reason. It's a better test than just playing one game, giving one team HFA.

quo #69,

If that's correct, then I was mistaken.

I thought that the confs at that time all played full round-robin to determine a champion based on record, and thus only when the SEC expanded to 12, and so could not do a full round-robin, was the idea of a CCG implemented. And thus it was the solution for how to figure out who was the champion when you couldn't do a full round-robin.

quo #71,

Still apples and oranges though.

You're talking about a home/home during the regular season, like the NFL does.

(10-29-2016 05:42 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  quo #69,

If that's correct, then I was mistaken.

I thought that the confs at that time all played full round-robin to determine a champion based on record, and thus only when the SEC expanded to 12, and so could not do a full round-robin, was the idea of a CCG implemented. And thus it was the solution for how to figure out who was the champion when you couldn't do a full round-robin.

Hardly. The SEC certainly didn't play round robin with 10 teams (which requires a 9-game schedule), and in fact didn't even play 8 games in those days...

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

Nonetheless, if you did play a full RR and then expanded too large ... a divisional RR with the division winners playing in a CCG is how you'd do it.

H2H shouldn't be a tie breaker alone I agree. You have to look at things like margin of victory, home field, injuries, time of year, and many other factors. In the context of a tie breaker there is probably no better metric.

OSU will be in the playoff with a win over UM, despite the game being at the Horseshoe and despite the fact that OSU already has a loss to PSU. Some years that's just the way it goes. UM can afford to blow a game, but nonetheless, that OSU game will be a quarterfinal game. Loser will be out.

Clemson, UL is another. The key difference is that the winner still needs to win an extra game in the CCG. What if UM beats OSU but loses in the CCG? I don't even think UM needs the win at that point if they lock in a road win at OSU.

(10-29-2016 05:44 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  quo #71,

Still apples and oranges though.

You're talking about a home/home during the regular season, like the NFL does.

Not sure what you mean. Yes, that's what I'm talking about, and I did so as a counter to those who think what in college football is called a "full round robin" with H2H tiebreaker is reasonably definitive, rendering a CCG superfluous.

That's because to me, what the Big 12 does is actually a half round robin. A "full" round robin means the way it's done in college hoops and the NFL (within a division), where the teams being compared play two games, home and away. The college football way is inadequate because it gives one team HFA.

One solution could be: If two teams in a conference playing a "full" round robin (like the Big 12) tie with the same conference record, then H2H is the first tiebreaker IF the road team won the game. But if the home team did, we skip down to the second tiebreaker.

It's tough because that TCU@Baylor loss was a squeaker. What if Baylor won the game 35-7 or something?

To me, I would look at the strength of losses and victories within conference play. Maybe point differential, before I go to H2H and penalize the road team on the losing side.

First tie breaker could be whose losses were at home versus on the road, and what was the quality of the loss. But H2H will always stay in place no matter what. Sometimes it's just the way the schedule breaks that year, and you get the extra home game and home win.