(05-06-2022 09:55 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Some thoughts reading this thread:

1) If the Sun Belt takes advantage of this, the schedule will probably still include East and West round-robins; there is even a slight possibility they will continue to publish standings in two divisions to facilitate tie-breakers. They 'may' tweak things by adding USM-MU in exchange for Troy-GaSt or some sort.

2) Whether the #1 plays the #4 or #2 team in the conference makes a marginal difference in whether the #1 team will get the NY6 spot. BUT, while the #4 team will likely still be unranked after upsetting #1, the #2 teams 'could' vault into the NY6 after such a strong upset. The Sun Belt will consider this.

This is my biggest issue with the new split. GSU doesn't play the team closest to them and has added travel to 3 teams that are 2-3 hours further away than their previously furthest trip.

No...

This thread offers interesting opinions on MWC's decision to go division-less. My opinion is, if it ain't broke, don't mess it up.

(05-06-2022 09:55 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Some thoughts reading this thread:

1) If the Sun Belt takes advantage of this, the schedule will probably still include East and West round-robins; there is even a slight possibility they will continue to publish standings in two divisions to facilitate tie-breakers. They 'may' tweak things by adding USM-MU in exchange for Troy-GaSt or some sort.

2) Whether the #1 plays the #4 or #2 team in the conference makes a marginal difference in whether the #1 team will get the NY6 spot. BUT, while the #4 team will likely still be unranked after upsetting #1, the #2 teams 'could' vault into the NY6 after such a strong upset. The Sun Belt will consider this.

Again, I ask: realistically, how often is 2 NY6 contenders in the same division going to happen? We're talking TWO teams in the same division getting through OOC either unscathed or at worst with 1 loss to a highly-ranked P5. Then one of those schools' only loss in-conference would have to be to the other one. All that would then set up the conditions in which this move would matter. Otherwise, it's pointless.

Can it happen? Of course, anything can. Will it ever? Probably not.

The year everybody's pointing to in the MWC was 2014 when Boise had to play 6-6 Fresno in the title game. Thing is, Boise's fate wasn't going to change even if they'd beaten Ohio State in the MWC CG. They already had 2 losses and were #22 in the CFP standings going in. The best example they can rustle up in favor of doing this was a moot point anyway.

(05-05-2022 08:59 AM)space orange Wrote:  

(05-05-2022 07:33 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  I don’t think it would work well to go divisionless and then play still play what would be division teams.

Hypothetical: App State is 7-1 and Georgia Southern is 6-2. In the “West” Arkansas State has the best record at 5-3. App State vs Georgia Southern in the championship seems palatable.

Hypothetical: Coastal Carolina is 7-1 and Georgia State is 6-2. In the “West” ULM has the best record at 7-1. Even if ULM has a much weaker schedule, having a championship game between Coastal Carolina and Georgia State that have better “rankings” seems wrong.

Hypothetical: Texas State is 8-0. Louisiana is 7-1. JMU is 7-1. Marshall is 7-1. Texas State beat Louisiana head to head. JMU lost to Louisiana. Marshall lost to JMU. The “rankings” have the order of “best team” at JMU, Louisiana, Marshall, then Texas State. Who plays in the championship? Excluding Texas State in any scenario seems wrong.

In the end if you went divisionless, you CAN’T punish a school for then having a worse overall ranking, in my opinion. On the field results means something.

I think in your second hypothetical, you're confused about what would happen. Conference record takes higher priority than CFP ranking. CFP ranking is normally just used by conferences as a tie breaker in case of equal records, no head to head match, equal records against common opponents, etc. In that second example your CCG would be 7-1 Coastal and 7-1 ULM.

Same thing again for hypothetical #3. Rankings are only used for ties, so it would be 8-0 Texas State versus whatever the conference tiebreaker rules say is the best of the 7-1 teams, which in your example would be JMU.

Ranking based on W/L record first can have flaws also.

If one division is stronger than the other, it may be two teams with a better record are both from the weaker division, and potentially both ranked lower in the CFP due to SOS.

That could backfire, and keep your two "best ranked" CFP teams out of the CCG. I don't see a scenario that stacks the deck for the CFP/NY6 reliably and also doesn't create the controversies/scenarios Skully raises.

(05-06-2022 11:47 AM)HarborPointe Wrote:  The year everybody's pointing to in the MWC was 2014 when Boise had to play 6-6 Fresno in the title game. Thing is, Boise's fate wasn't going to change even if they'd beaten Ohio State in the MWC CG. They already had 2 losses and were #22 in the CFP standings going in. The best example they can rustle up in favor of doing this was a moot point anyway.

The argument is not that a better opponent would have helped Boise. As you said, whether they beat Ohio State or New Mexico State, they would have gone to the NY6.

The argument is what if Boise lost. A 7-6 Fresno would have had no hope, but an 11-2 Colorado State would have. The Mountain West would like to optimize their chances. Both teams played Boise already and the Mountain division was the tougher division anyway. There is not really a competitive reason why Fresno ‘should’ have played for the championship.

(05-06-2022 02:26 PM)Crayton Wrote:  The argument is not that a better opponent would have helped Boise. As you said, whether they beat Ohio State or New Mexico State, they would have gone to the NY6.

The argument is what if Boise lost. A 7-6 Fresno would have had no hope, but an 11-2 Colorado State would have.

No, they wouldn’t have. With their 2 losses, one in the regular season finale, Colorado State wasn’t even in the CFP ranking going into CG week. One win over #22 wasn’t going to propel them into the catbird’s seat.

We can “what if…?” it until the cows come home with infinite fictitious scenarios, but it’s all chasing a ghost in the end. In 25 years of real-world application, no G5 conference has ever gone into CG week with 2 viable contenders for the auto bid, nor has a contender ever won their CG and missed out because of the quality of their opponent.

We don’t need a permanent solution to a problem so temporary it’s yet to even exist.

(05-06-2022 03:49 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(05-06-2022 02:26 PM)Crayton Wrote:  The argument is not that a better opponent would have helped Boise. As you said, whether they beat Ohio State or New Mexico State, they would have gone to the NY6.

The argument is what if Boise lost. A 7-6 Fresno would have had no hope, but an 11-2 Colorado State would have.

No, they wouldn’t have. With their 2 losses, one in the regular season finale, Colorado State wasn’t even in the CFP ranking going into CG week. One win over #22 wasn’t going to propel them into the catbird’s seat.

We can “what if…?” it until the cows come home with infinite fictitious scenarios, but it’s all chasing a ghost in the end. In 25 years of real-world application, no G5 conference has ever gone into CG week with 2 viable contenders for the auto bid, nor has a contender ever won their CG and missed out because of the quality of their opponent.

We don’t need a permanent solution to a problem so temporary it’s yet to even exist.

EVERY year at least 1 conference (usually the AAC) has had 2 viable contenders for the auto-bid:
'21 Houston vs. Cincinnati
'20 Louisiana vs. Coastal (if Cincinnati lost)
'19 Cincinnati vs. Memphis
'18 Fresno St vs. Boise St (if UCF lost)
'17 Memphis vs. UCF
'16 Temple vs. Navy (if WMU lost)
'15 Temple vs. Houston

In a given year, if the two listed teams had been in the same division, it could have been a different conference with a pair of contenders.

In 2014 it may have been close between Colorado State and Marshall. With an extra loss and no CCG, Colorado State was still only 20 points behind Marshall in the AP. A win over nationally-ranked Boise St likely erases that deficit and catapults Colorado State to the NY6.

(05-06-2022 04:26 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(05-06-2022 03:49 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(05-06-2022 02:26 PM)Crayton Wrote:  The argument is not that a better opponent would have helped Boise. As you said, whether they beat Ohio State or New Mexico State, they would have gone to the NY6.

The argument is what if Boise lost. A 7-6 Fresno would have had no hope, but an 11-2 Colorado State would have.

No, they wouldn’t have. With their 2 losses, one in the regular season finale, Colorado State wasn’t even in the CFP ranking going into CG week. One win over #22 wasn’t going to propel them into the catbird’s seat.

We can “what if…?” it until the cows come home with infinite fictitious scenarios, but it’s all chasing a ghost in the end. In 25 years of real-world application, no G5 conference has ever gone into CG week with 2 viable contenders for the auto bid, nor has a contender ever won their CG and missed out because of the quality of their opponent.

We don’t need a permanent solution to a problem so temporary it’s yet to even exist.

EVERY year at least 1 conference (usually the AAC) has had 2 viable contenders for the auto-bid:
'21 Houston vs. Cincinnati
'20 Louisiana vs. Coastal (if Cincinnati lost)
'19 Cincinnati vs. Memphis
'18 Fresno St vs. Boise St (if UCF lost)
'17 Memphis vs. UCF
'16 Temple vs. Navy (if WMU lost)
'15 Temple vs. Houston

In a given year, if the two listed teams had been in the same division, it could have been a different conference with a pair of contenders.

In 2014 it may have been close between Colorado State and Marshall. With an extra loss and no CCG, Colorado State was still only 20 points behind Marshall in the AP. A win over nationally-ranked Boise St likely erases that deficit and catapults Colorado State to the NY6.

We clearly differ in our definitions of “viable,” and that’s all I have to say about that. I’ll leave it to other folks to review the rankings histories and draw their own conclusions.

(05-06-2022 05:12 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(05-06-2022 04:26 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(05-06-2022 03:49 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(05-06-2022 02:26 PM)Crayton Wrote:  The argument is not that a better opponent would have helped Boise. As you said, whether they beat Ohio State or New Mexico State, they would have gone to the NY6.

The argument is what if Boise lost. A 7-6 Fresno would have had no hope, but an 11-2 Colorado State would have.

No, they wouldn’t have. With their 2 losses, one in the regular season finale, Colorado State wasn’t even in the CFP ranking going into CG week. One win over #22 wasn’t going to propel them into the catbird’s seat.

We can “what if…?” it until the cows come home with infinite fictitious scenarios, but it’s all chasing a ghost in the end. In 25 years of real-world application, no G5 conference has ever gone into CG week with 2 viable contenders for the auto bid, nor has a contender ever won their CG and missed out because of the quality of their opponent.

We don’t need a permanent solution to a problem so temporary it’s yet to even exist.

EVERY year at least 1 conference (usually the AAC) has had 2 viable contenders for the auto-bid:
'21 Houston vs. Cincinnati
'20 Louisiana vs. Coastal (if Cincinnati lost)
'19 Cincinnati vs. Memphis
'18 Fresno St vs. Boise St (if UCF lost)
'17 Memphis vs. UCF
'16 Temple vs. Navy (if WMU lost)
'15 Temple vs. Houston

In a given year, if the two listed teams had been in the same division, it could have been a different conference with a pair of contenders.

In 2014 it may have been close between Colorado State and Marshall. With an extra loss and no CCG, Colorado State was still only 20 points behind Marshall in the AP. A win over nationally-ranked Boise St likely erases that deficit and catapults Colorado State to the NY6.

We clearly differ in our definitions of “viable,” and that’s all I have to say about that. I’ll leave it to other folks to review the rankings histories and draw their own conclusions.

Nope. Boise was going to go. All they had to do was win and it didn't matter who. But a three loss Boise nor a six win Fresno and I daresay a two or three loss CSU was getting in over a one loss and ranked Marshall in 2014.

I say we keep divisions for a few years and just see how the conference develops.

(05-07-2022 12:18 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  I say we keep divisions for a few years and just see how the conference develops.

I agree with this. No need to be rash. Divisions are rather tight geographically. The only new CCG scenario they might consider is if the #2 team in one division has a better record or head-to-head victory over the #1 team in the other division.

One of the selling points was the divisions. Especially the east and Troy moving over to the west so I doubt the conference is looking to breaking it up.

^ YEP.

I'm very excited about the East Division. If two division foes are in a position to compete for a top bowl spot then more the better...

Couldn’t you just take top two conference records and continue in division play? If the East had a 8-0 team and a 7-1 team while the west had two 6-2 teams wouldn’t you rather have the top two play?

(05-09-2022 09:13 AM)Ewglenn Wrote:  Couldn’t you just take top two conference records and continue in division play? If the East had a 8-0 team and a 7-1 team while the west had two 6-2 teams wouldn’t you rather have the top two play?

The other way around is a bit more challenging. A 6-2 East team may very well be better than an 8-0 West team. The East, on paper, seems stronger top to bottom than the West. How do you pick 8-0 and 7-1 from the weak side over 6-2 from the strong side? I think we should stick to the plan...nothing says we can't make exception if the weird scenario happens to occur, for the good of the conference. Just vote on an amendment that allows for special case, now, to be ready in the future.

Any subpar division winner that chooses to play in the CCG over possibly elevating an SBC team to the access bowl, by deferring to the two best teams, would be pretty selfish. But it seems like it would be easy to have contingencies for that, though someone will be butthurt, most likely.

Division are great for non-football sports, because outside of hoops, Sun Belt teams usually fly commercial to away games or go on sleeper buses. That can be brutal.

For chartered flights, the costs for flying from Myrtle Beach to Alabama aren't make or break versus flying from Myrtle Beach to Texas, for example, especially in usual-revenue producing sports like football and basketball.

We can always re-asses 4-5 years down the line for football if it would make more sense to go divisionless.

What if we added 1 team and went to 3 5 team pods? For example:

East:
Marshall
ODU
App
JMU
Coastal

Central:
GaSo
GSt
WKU
USA
Troy

West:
USM
Ark St
ULM
UL
Texas St

Each team plays the 4 other teams in their pod, two permanent out of pod rivals, and two other teams on rotation?

(05-07-2022 09:35 AM)OsageJ Wrote:  One of the selling points was the divisions. Especially the east and Troy moving over to the west so I doubt the conference is looking to breaking it up.

Well said. The conference is doing quite well and it doesn't need changing. I am very happy about the teams that just entered the conference, but not too pleased that some of the newbies on this forum wanting the Belt to fade away from the divisions. JMHO.

(05-09-2022 04:30 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 09:35 AM)OsageJ Wrote:  One of the selling points was the divisions. Especially the east and Troy moving over to the west so I doubt the conference is looking to breaking it up.

Well said. The conference is doing quite well and it doesn't need changing. I am very happy about the teams that just entered the conference, but not too pleased that some of the newbies on this forum wanting the Belt to fade away from the divisions. JMHO.

I was curious that since the MWC was going without divisions if that may be something that the SBC may consider. I like having four of our six division mates within easy driving time, with the other two a little further off, but nothing like we've done with UTEP or Tulsa, for example.