(08-11-2017 05:12 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Bedlam is Nov 4th this season.

You are correct!

How silly of me to assume that the Big 12 would let all of its teams play rivalry games on T-giving weekend, like the rest of the country does. They purposefully forced OU and OK St to move Bedlem from T-giving weekend, to prevent the very likely immediate rematch in the CCG, and screwed over half the conference from playing a rivalry game on T-giving weekend in the process.

Texas still gets to play Tech, and TCU still gets to play Baylor, though. Guess they assume neither of those will be a CCG rematch.

I hope against all hope that one of those games is the Big 12 CCG rematch. Just can't stand the conference, and all the bumbling jerry-rigging it tries to do. Bite em' right in the a__!

I don't like rematches, because I don't think that they're fair, and I don't think that they're as interesting as other games featuring similar teams.

(08-12-2017 10:42 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-11-2017 05:12 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Bedlam is Nov 4th this season.

You are correct!

How silly of me to assume that the Big 12 would let all of its teams play rivalry games on T-giving weekend, like the rest of the country does. They purposefully forced OU and OK St to move Bedlem from T-giving weekend, to prevent the very likely immediate rematch in the CCG, and screwed over half the conference from playing a rivalry game on T-giving weekend in the process.

Texas still gets to play Tech, and TCU still gets to play Baylor, though. Guess they assume neither of those will be a CCG rematch.

I hope against all hope that one of those games is the Big 12 CCG rematch. Just can't stand the conference, and all the bumbling jerry-rigging it tries to do. Bite em' right in the a__!

I don't see how that would screw the other Big 12 teams out of playing a rivalry game. OU and OSU can just play OOC on Thanksgiving weekend.

(08-12-2017 11:05 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I don't like rematches, because I don't think that they're fair, and I don't think that they're as interesting as other games featuring similar teams.

How are they not fair?

(08-12-2017 11:05 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I don't like rematches, because I don't think that they're fair, and I don't think that they're as interesting as other games featuring similar teams.

Are they any less fair than NFL playoff rematches or rematches between teams in the NCAA tournament?

Bottom line is that all teams know what they have to do to make their CCG: Either win their division or in the case of the Big 12, finish in the top two. It's not to necessarily beat any one particular team during the regular season, so I don't see how anything can be unfair about a rematch.

(08-12-2017 12:25 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-12-2017 10:42 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-11-2017 05:12 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Bedlam is Nov 4th this season.

You are correct!

How silly of me to assume that the Big 12 would let all of its teams play rivalry games on T-giving weekend, like the rest of the country does. They purposefully forced OU and OK St to move Bedlem from T-giving weekend, to prevent the very likely immediate rematch in the CCG, and screwed over half the conference from playing a rivalry game on T-giving weekend in the process.

Texas still gets to play Tech, and TCU still gets to play Baylor, though. Guess they assume neither of those will be a CCG rematch.

I hope against all hope that one of those games is the Big 12 CCG rematch. Just can't stand the conference, and all the bumbling jerry-rigging it tries to do. Bite em' right in the a__!

I don't see how that would screw the other Big 12 teams out of playing a rivalry game. OU and OSU can just play OOC on Thanksgiving weekend.

(08-12-2017 11:05 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I don't like rematches, because I don't think that they're fair, and I don't think that they're as interesting as other games featuring similar teams.

How are they not fair?

One team inherently has more motivation than the other.

(08-12-2017 01:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2017 11:05 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I don't like rematches, because I don't think that they're fair, and I don't think that they're as interesting as other games featuring similar teams.

Are they any less fair than NFL playoff rematches or rematches between teams in the NCAA tournament?

Bottom line is that all teams know what they have to do to make their CCG: Either win their division or in the case of the Big 12, finish in the top two. It's not to necessarily beat any one particular team during the regular season, so I don't see how anything can be unfair about a rematch.

1. I didn't say anything about the NFL, but since you asked, I think that the NCAA and the NFL are two different beasts. The NCAA has a lot more heart/emotion/meaning. The NFL usually consists of 2 groups of mercenaries w/ tangential relationships to random geographies playing against each other.
2. It's unfair because one team inherently has more motivation than the other.

(08-12-2017 10:42 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-11-2017 05:12 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Bedlam is Nov 4th this season.

You are correct!

How silly of me to assume that the Big 12 would let all of its teams play rivalry games on T-giving weekend, like the rest of the country does. They purposefully forced OU and OK St to move Bedlem from T-giving weekend, to prevent the very likely immediate rematch in the CCG, and screwed over half the conference from playing a rivalry game on T-giving weekend in the process.

Texas still gets to play Tech, and TCU still gets to play Baylor, though. Guess they assume neither of those will be a CCG rematch.

I hope against all hope that one of those games is the Big 12 CCG rematch. Just can't stand the conference, and all the bumbling jerry-rigging it tries to do. Bite em' right in the a__!

Gee, you don't like the Big 12. Who would have ever guessed?

(08-12-2017 02:21 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  One team inherently has more motivation than the other.

How? You mean the team that lost the regular season matchup has an advantage because it might possibly want to beat the other team more than vice versa? That's just silly. Both need to win the game in order to win the conference. Their personal motivations for doing so are irrelevant.

(08-12-2017 06:49 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-12-2017 02:21 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  One team inherently has more motivation than the other.

How? You mean the team that lost the regular season matchup has an advantage because it might possibly want to beat the other team more than vice versa? That's just silly. Both need to win the game in order to win the conference. Their personal motivations for doing so are irrelevant.

That's almost never true in life, and it's less true in CFB, which is all about emotion and motivation.

(08-12-2017 02:23 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(08-12-2017 01:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2017 11:05 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I don't like rematches, because I don't think that they're fair, and I don't think that they're as interesting as other games featuring similar teams.

Are they any less fair than NFL playoff rematches or rematches between teams in the NCAA tournament?

Bottom line is that all teams know what they have to do to make their CCG: Either win their division or in the case of the Big 12, finish in the top two. It's not to necessarily beat any one particular team during the regular season, so I don't see how anything can be unfair about a rematch.

1. I didn't say anything about the NFL, but since you asked, I think that the NCAA and the NFL are two different beasts. The NCAA has a lot more heart/emotion/meaning. The NFL usually consists of 2 groups of mercenaries w/ tangential relationships to random geographies playing against each other.
2. It's unfair because one team inherently has more motivation than the other.

OK, so let's say that Syracuse wins the ACC Atlantic with a 6-1 record, and their only defeat is to Pitt, the one team they play cross-division. Pitt wins the ACC Coastal with a 5-2 record. Do we just not play the ACC CCG and declare Pitt the ACC champ because they beat Syracuse during the regular season, even though Syracuse had a better conference record?

That would be pretty crazy, eh?

(08-13-2017 12:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2017 02:23 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(08-12-2017 01:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2017 11:05 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I don't like rematches, because I don't think that they're fair, and I don't think that they're as interesting as other games featuring similar teams.

Are they any less fair than NFL playoff rematches or rematches between teams in the NCAA tournament?

Bottom line is that all teams know what they have to do to make their CCG: Either win their division or in the case of the Big 12, finish in the top two. It's not to necessarily beat any one particular team during the regular season, so I don't see how anything can be unfair about a rematch.

1. I didn't say anything about the NFL, but since you asked, I think that the NCAA and the NFL are two different beasts. The NCAA has a lot more heart/emotion/meaning. The NFL usually consists of 2 groups of mercenaries w/ tangential relationships to random geographies playing against each other.
2. It's unfair because one team inherently has more motivation than the other.

OK, so let's say that Syracuse wins the ACC Atlantic with a 6-1 record, and their only defeat is to Pitt, the one team they play cross-division. Pitt wins the ACC Coastal with a 5-2 record. Do we just not play the ACC CCG and declare Pitt the ACC champ because they beat Syracuse during the regular season, even though Syracuse had a better conference record?

That would be pretty crazy, eh?

"Conference Championship Rematches: What's the Problem?"

That was the question. My answer is tat the games aren't fair and are less interesting than non-repeats.

Your post is trying to change the argument.

(08-13-2017 12:11 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(08-12-2017 06:49 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-12-2017 02:21 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  One team inherently has more motivation than the other.

How? You mean the team that lost the regular season matchup has an advantage because it might possibly want to beat the other team more than vice versa? That's just silly. Both need to win the game in order to win the conference. Their personal motivations for doing so are irrelevant.

That's almost never true in life, and it's less true in CFB, which is all about emotion and motivation.

If two teams play in one season, then should they not play the next season because the losing team from the previous year might (and that's a key word) be more motivated to win? By the logic of your argument (i.e., rematches are unfair), teams shouldn't play each other more than once ever.

Your argument is based on emotion rather than reason. Objectively, there's nothing unfair about a CCG rematch.

(08-09-2017 05:14 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  There's one last point to it, which might explain why the Big Ten, SEC, and ACC have escaped the last three seasons: imbalanced divisions.

Because, ALL conf games count for determining the division winner, not just division games. So in comes Ohio St, Penn St, or Alabama, Auburn, or FL St, Clemson. They beat whomever they play on the other division. That makes the rematch with those teams less likely, because those loses will count against those teams winning the division.

PAC and MWC on the other hand, more balanced divisions.

Makes you think that maybe multi-division conferences should only count games inside the division. WAC-16 basketball did that.

(08-13-2017 04:26 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(08-13-2017 12:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2017 02:23 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(08-12-2017 01:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2017 11:05 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I don't like rematches, because I don't think that they're fair, and I don't think that they're as interesting as other games featuring similar teams.

Are they any less fair than NFL playoff rematches or rematches between teams in the NCAA tournament?

Bottom line is that all teams know what they have to do to make their CCG: Either win their division or in the case of the Big 12, finish in the top two. It's not to necessarily beat any one particular team during the regular season, so I don't see how anything can be unfair about a rematch.

1. I didn't say anything about the NFL, but since you asked, I think that the NCAA and the NFL are two different beasts. The NCAA has a lot more heart/emotion/meaning. The NFL usually consists of 2 groups of mercenaries w/ tangential relationships to random geographies playing against each other.
2. It's unfair because one team inherently has more motivation than the other.

OK, so let's say that Syracuse wins the ACC Atlantic with a 6-1 record, and their only defeat is to Pitt, the one team they play cross-division. Pitt wins the ACC Coastal with a 5-2 record. Do we just not play the ACC CCG and declare Pitt the ACC champ because they beat Syracuse during the regular season, even though Syracuse had a better conference record?

That would be pretty crazy, eh?

"Conference Championship Rematches: What's the Problem?"

That was the question. My answer is tat the games aren't fair and are less interesting than non-repeats.

Your post is trying to change the argument.

I wasn't trying to change the argument. To me, if some aspect of competition is "unfair", that is prima-facie a claim that the situation should be changed, because fairness, meaning a formally even playing field for all, is fundamental to valid competition. That's why i asked how you would change the ACC's method for determining a champ.

But if all you meant by "unfair" was that CCG rematches are irksome in some minor way inside your mind but nothing to take action over, than sure, there was no reason for me to engage you about it.

(08-13-2017 04:44 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-13-2017 12:11 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(08-12-2017 06:49 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-12-2017 02:21 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  One team inherently has more motivation than the other.

How? You mean the team that lost the regular season matchup has an advantage because it might possibly want to beat the other team more than vice versa? That's just silly. Both need to win the game in order to win the conference. Their personal motivations for doing so are irrelevant.

That's almost never true in life, and it's less true in CFB, which is all about emotion and motivation.

If two teams play in one season, then should they not play the next season because the losing team from the previous year might (and that's a key word) be more motivated to win? By the logic of your argument (i.e., rematches are unfair), teams shouldn't play each other more than once ever.

Your argument is based on emotion rather than reason. Objectively, there's nothing unfair about a CCG rematch.

There's a huge difference between 2 games in a year and 2 games in 2 years, especially in college where ~25-30% of the team is different every year.

There's also a huge difference between a team getting a slight advantage in a random game, and a team getting a tangibly large advantage in what is almost always a championship game (same season H&H's are exceedingly rare in CFB).

(08-13-2017 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-13-2017 04:26 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(08-13-2017 12:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2017 02:23 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(08-12-2017 01:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Are they any less fair than NFL playoff rematches or rematches between teams in the NCAA tournament?

Bottom line is that all teams know what they have to do to make their CCG: Either win their division or in the case of the Big 12, finish in the top two. It's not to necessarily beat any one particular team during the regular season, so I don't see how anything can be unfair about a rematch.

1. I didn't say anything about the NFL, but since you asked, I think that the NCAA and the NFL are two different beasts. The NCAA has a lot more heart/emotion/meaning. The NFL usually consists of 2 groups of mercenaries w/ tangential relationships to random geographies playing against each other.
2. It's unfair because one team inherently has more motivation than the other.

OK, so let's say that Syracuse wins the ACC Atlantic with a 6-1 record, and their only defeat is to Pitt, the one team they play cross-division. Pitt wins the ACC Coastal with a 5-2 record. Do we just not play the ACC CCG and declare Pitt the ACC champ because they beat Syracuse during the regular season, even though Syracuse had a better conference record?

That would be pretty crazy, eh?

"Conference Championship Rematches: What's the Problem?"

That was the question. My answer is tat the games aren't fair and are less interesting than non-repeats.

Your post is trying to change the argument.

I wasn't trying to change the argument. To me, if some aspect of competition is "unfair", that is prima-facie a claim that the situation should be changed, because fairness, meaning a formally even playing field for all, is fundamental to valid competition. That's why i asked how you would change the ACC's method for determining a champ.

But if all you meant by "unfair" was that CCG rematches are irksome in some minor way inside your mind but nothing to take action over, than sure, there was no reason for me to engage you about it.

My mind and, so I'm told, the minds of the players involved. Given the stuff that makes locker room bulletin boards as motivating material, I find it incredibly hard to believe that the general consensus is wrong.

And whether you were trying to change the question or not, you did. But to answer your different question, I think that CCG's are generally great and the gain from changing the system to improve several isolated instances is outweighed by the good from the system during the non-isolated circumstances. I also think that there's a value to simplicity and consistency that outweighs the gains from a dynamic and complicated system to right all wrongs.

(08-13-2017 09:50 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(08-13-2017 04:44 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-13-2017 12:11 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(08-12-2017 06:49 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-12-2017 02:21 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  One team inherently has more motivation than the other.

How? You mean the team that lost the regular season matchup has an advantage because it might possibly want to beat the other team more than vice versa? That's just silly. Both need to win the game in order to win the conference. Their personal motivations for doing so are irrelevant.

That's almost never true in life, and it's less true in CFB, which is all about emotion and motivation.

If two teams play in one season, then should they not play the next season because the losing team from the previous year might (and that's a key word) be more motivated to win? By the logic of your argument (i.e., rematches are unfair), teams shouldn't play each other more than once ever.

Your argument is based on emotion rather than reason. Objectively, there's nothing unfair about a CCG rematch.

There's a huge difference between 2 games in a year and 2 games in 2 years, especially in college where ~25-30% of the team is different every year.

There's also a huge difference between a team getting a slight advantage in a random game, and a team getting a tangibly large advantage in what is almost always a championship game (same season H&H's are exceedingly rare in CFB).

Any advantage gained by this would be the winning team's own problem for somehow not being motivated enough to win again in a game of higher stakes. It's absolutely not the fault of the system and so is not a legitimate criticism of CCG rematches.

Even if could be shown that there is some advantage gained by it, I don't see how it would be "tangibly large." Consider that it's possible that one team lost the first game because they're not quite as good as the other team. I would think talent disparity and even HFA are more important factors in determining who wins the game than supposed grudges.

(08-13-2017 09:54 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(08-13-2017 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-13-2017 04:26 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(08-13-2017 12:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2017 02:23 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1. I didn't say anything about the NFL, but since you asked, I think that the NCAA and the NFL are two different beasts. The NCAA has a lot more heart/emotion/meaning. The NFL usually consists of 2 groups of mercenaries w/ tangential relationships to random geographies playing against each other.
2. It's unfair because one team inherently has more motivation than the other.

OK, so let's say that Syracuse wins the ACC Atlantic with a 6-1 record, and their only defeat is to Pitt, the one team they play cross-division. Pitt wins the ACC Coastal with a 5-2 record. Do we just not play the ACC CCG and declare Pitt the ACC champ because they beat Syracuse during the regular season, even though Syracuse had a better conference record?

That would be pretty crazy, eh?

"Conference Championship Rematches: What's the Problem?"

That was the question. My answer is tat the games aren't fair and are less interesting than non-repeats.

Your post is trying to change the argument.

I wasn't trying to change the argument. To me, if some aspect of competition is "unfair", that is prima-facie a claim that the situation should be changed, because fairness, meaning a formally even playing field for all, is fundamental to valid competition. That's why i asked how you would change the ACC's method for determining a champ.

But if all you meant by "unfair" was that CCG rematches are irksome in some minor way inside your mind but nothing to take action over, than sure, there was no reason for me to engage you about it.

My mind and, so I'm told, the minds of the players involved. Given the stuff that makes locker room bulletin boards as motivating material, I find it incredibly hard to believe that the general consensus is wrong.

Since the SEC title game was introduced in 1992, the winner of the regular season game is 14-6 in CCG rematch games among the P5 conferences. A 70% win rate. That's a pretty good winning % against a quality opponent for teams allegedly suffering some big, unfair psychological or motivational disadvantage or whatever. Maybe that motivational 'disadvantage' is counterbalanced by the fact that the losing regular season team might have their own doubts going in to the rematch because, you know, those other guys already proved they can beat them?

Or maybe you think that since team A beat team B the first time, they should beat them 100% of the time if they play again?

(08-13-2017 11:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Since the SEC title game was introduced in 1992, the winner of the regular season game is 14-6 in CCG rematch games among the P5 conferences. A 70% win rate. That's a pretty good winning % against a quality opponent for teams allegedly suffering some big, unfair psychological or motivational disadvantage or whatever. Maybe that motivational 'disadvantage' is counterbalanced by the fact that the losing regular season team might have their own doubts going in to the rematch because, you know, those other guys already proved they can beat them?

Or maybe you think that since team A beat team B the first time, they should beat them 100% of the time if they play again?

Good point. It's 14-8 for power conferences, though, and 20-13 among all I-A/FBS conferences.

(08-13-2017 11:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-13-2017 09:54 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(08-13-2017 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-13-2017 04:26 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(08-13-2017 12:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  OK, so let's say that Syracuse wins the ACC Atlantic with a 6-1 record, and their only defeat is to Pitt, the one team they play cross-division. Pitt wins the ACC Coastal with a 5-2 record. Do we just not play the ACC CCG and declare Pitt the ACC champ because they beat Syracuse during the regular season, even though Syracuse had a better conference record?

That would be pretty crazy, eh?

"Conference Championship Rematches: What's the Problem?"

That was the question. My answer is tat the games aren't fair and are less interesting than non-repeats.

Your post is trying to change the argument.

I wasn't trying to change the argument. To me, if some aspect of competition is "unfair", that is prima-facie a claim that the situation should be changed, because fairness, meaning a formally even playing field for all, is fundamental to valid competition. That's why i asked how you would change the ACC's method for determining a champ.

But if all you meant by "unfair" was that CCG rematches are irksome in some minor way inside your mind but nothing to take action over, than sure, there was no reason for me to engage you about it.

My mind and, so I'm told, the minds of the players involved. Given the stuff that makes locker room bulletin boards as motivating material, I find it incredibly hard to believe that the general consensus is wrong.

Since the SEC title game was introduced in 1992, the winner of the regular season game is 14-6 in CCG rematch games among the P5 conferences. A 70% win rate. That's a pretty good winning % against a quality opponent for teams allegedly suffering some big, unfair psychological or motivational disadvantage or whatever. Maybe that motivational 'disadvantage' is counterbalanced by the fact that the losing regular season team might have their own doubts going in to the rematch because, you know, those other guys already proved they can beat them?

Or maybe you think that since team A beat team B the first time, they should beat them 100% of the time if they play again?

100%? No. But all other factors being equal, the team that won the first game is more likely to be more talented/better coached/etc., so they're more likely to win the second game (+50%).

The problem is that the outcome of repeat games is probably closer to 50% than it otherwise would be, save for the systemic advantage that the underdog has. Unfortunately, to your earlier point, this situation makes the game less valid, and therefore less interesting - at least to me (and probably many others because I don't think that repeats get the same kind of ratings that they otherwise would).

And I have yet to see any evidence supporting your theory about first loss insecurity. I have, however, seen at least anecdotal evidence supporting my theory. For example, I have heard a number of interviews where players and coaches have talked about how they're motivated by a loss earlier in the season. I've also heard interviews from players and coaches where the winning team didn't want to play the losing team again. I have, however, not heard the inverse. It may exist, so I'm sure someone can cherry pick an article if they look hard enough, but those kinds of articles/interviews are far less common.

Like it or not, as far as I can tell, your argument rests on wishful thinking. Mine rests on experience of the people involved.