Pragmatically, you can't have a tie-breaker game that you skip if the champion is unambiguous. So as long as there is good reason to have the game in a number of seasons, it's six of one & half a dozen of the other whether you have it or not ... in some years, it will be "silly" to have it, in some years it will be "silly" to not have it.
Given that it risks being silly either way, I'd say go with the one that earns the most money for the conference.
(12-02-2017 08:31 PM)RUScarlets Wrote: [ -> ]There could be a three way tie as well, in which case you'd have to remove a team based on point differentials or whatever the tie breaker is.
I don't like H2H either because the winning team may have had homefield advantage in that regular season game.
It's better having a game, but they'd be better off adding at least one more team and two teams and two divisions and go to an 8 game conference schedule. More quality OOC games is better.
Why would you assume the additional OOC games will be quality games?
Well playing 8 conf games gives a higher probability of avoiding a rematch in the CCG by default. Only take a game out if you schedule P5 OOC and not pull an SEC pre rivalry weekend.
I don't know what's going to happen this year. I think Bama's OOC is decent this year but they play that crap FCS game pre rivalry weekend and it may cost them.
3 quality OOCs should be required for P5 conferences only playing 8 conf games.
I think conferences shouldn’t be forced to have divisions if they have 12 teams. How dumb is that rule when 10 team conferences can reap the benefits?
The ACC could settle a lot of scheduling issues by not being forced to have divisions. Ultimately, divisions create fabricated yearly bouts like Texas A&M-South Carolina and Louisville-Virginia. It would have benefitted the old Big XII by allowing Oklahoma and Nebraska to play every year. All the Cali schools in the Pac 12 could go back to playing each other yearly as well.
The old school 12 team SEC (with GT and Tulane) didn’t have divisions and they were fine.
The only good thing about divisions is that it eliminates a back to back repeat game.
(12-02-2017 06:46 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]Well of course I have no say in it. It doesn't make it any less silly.
Is it any sillier than the six other conferences which have rematches in their championship games?
The question is this. Who would win the Big 12 Championship this year if it was between Oklahoma Vs UCF? What if UCF pulled of the victory over Oklahoma?
@ken_d
At least they're split into divisions, thus both winners didn't play roughly the same schedule. The idea of conference championship games is dumb anyways. It was a genius ploy by Roy Kramer a quarter century ago but overall a bad idea, whether it's good made-for-TV or not.
(12-02-2017 09:21 PM)RUScarlets Wrote: [ -> ]Well playing 8 conf games gives a higher probability of avoiding a rematch in the CCG by default. Only take a game out if you schedule P5 OOC and not pull an SEC pre rivalry weekend.
I don't know what's going to happen this year. I think Bama's OOC is decent this year but they play that crap FCS game pre rivalry weekend and it may cost them.
3 quality OOCs should be required for P5 conferences only playing 8 conf games.
Alabama played Fresno St and Colorado st. CSU did decent but Fresno is #25 and currently winng the MW championship game.
(12-02-2017 09:29 PM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]I think conferences shouldn’t be forced to have divisions if they have 12 teams. How dumb is that rule when 10 team conferences can reap the benefits?
The ACC could settle a lot of scheduling issues by not being forced to have divisions. Ultimately, divisions create fabricated yearly bouts like Texas A&M-South Carolina and Louisville-Virginia. It would have benefitted the old Big XII by allowing Oklahoma and Nebraska to play every year. All the Cali schools in the Pac 12 could go back to playing each other yearly as well.
The old school 12 team SEC (with GT and Tulane) didn’t have divisions and they were fine.
The only good thing about divisions is that it eliminates a back to back repeat game.
You mean like Fresno State and Boise State?
(12-02-2017 10:05 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2017 09:29 PM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]I think conferences shouldn’t be forced to have divisions if they have 12 teams. How dumb is that rule when 10 team conferences can reap the benefits?
The ACC could settle a lot of scheduling issues by not being forced to have divisions. Ultimately, divisions create fabricated yearly bouts like Texas A&M-South Carolina and Louisville-Virginia. It would have benefitted the old Big XII by allowing Oklahoma and Nebraska to play every year. All the Cali schools in the Pac 12 could go back to playing each other yearly as well.
The old school 12 team SEC (with GT and Tulane) didn’t have divisions and they were fine.
The only good thing about divisions is that it eliminates a back to back repeat game.
You mean like Fresno State and Boise State?
Ha..yep!
There has been some emails sent to the MW office that all cross division games should be played first. If there is a rematch, it would be a game that happened a while ago.
(12-02-2017 03:54 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]@ quo
True but they do play round robin, which is more than fair. Football conferences have never been double round robin except in the very old days with much smaller conferences. Imagine a scenario where Team A beats Team B by 50 but loses to them by 1 in the CCG. It's one thing in two division conferences but ridiculous in single division conferences.
2001 regular season, Texas 41, Colorado 7.
2001 big 12 ccg, Colorado 39, Texas 37.
It happens in two division conferences.
(12-02-2017 04:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]Well this year at least, it paid off for the Big 12. Big crowd, and OU's emphatic win erases all doubt about the playoffs, they are in.
It didn't pay off. OU was in anyway. TCU got knocked out of a NY6 bowl.
(12-02-2017 10:23 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2017 03:54 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]@ quo
True but they do play round robin, which is more than fair. Football conferences have never been double round robin except in the very old days with much smaller conferences. Imagine a scenario where Team A beats Team B by 50 but loses to them by 1 in the CCG. It's one thing in two division conferences but ridiculous in single division conferences.
2001 regular season, Texas 41, Colorado 7.
2001 big 12 ccg, Colorado 39, Texas 37.
It happens in two division conferences.
At least they were split into different divisions without a virtually common schedule.
(12-02-2017 10:05 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2017 09:29 PM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]I think conferences shouldn’t be forced to have divisions if they have 12 teams. How dumb is that rule when 10 team conferences can reap the benefits?
The ACC could settle a lot of scheduling issues by not being forced to have divisions. Ultimately, divisions create fabricated yearly bouts like Texas A&M-South Carolina and Louisville-Virginia. It would have benefitted the old Big XII by allowing Oklahoma and Nebraska to play every year. All the Cali schools in the Pac 12 could go back to playing each other yearly as well.
The old school 12 team SEC (with GT and Tulane) didn’t have divisions and they were fine.
The only good thing about divisions is that it eliminates a back to back repeat game.
You mean like Fresno State and Boise State?
Well it should if the league office knows what they’re doing.
(12-02-2017 10:24 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2017 04:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]Well this year at least, it paid off for the Big 12. Big crowd, and OU's emphatic win erases all doubt about the playoffs, they are in.
It didn't pay off. OU was in anyway. TCU got knocked out of a NY6 bowl.
Good point about TCU.
Maybe Notre Dame sneaks in?
(12-02-2017 10:24 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2017 04:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]Well this year at least, it paid off for the Big 12. Big crowd, and OU's emphatic win erases all doubt about the playoffs, they are in.
It didn't pay off. OU was in anyway. TCU got knocked out of a NY6 bowl.
That's true, no title game and OU still would be in the playoffs as TCU likely in the Cotton. Now TCU very likely in Alamo and the Big 12 only has 1 NY6 or playoff rep with OU.
(12-03-2017 12:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2017 10:24 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2017 04:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]Well this year at least, it paid off for the Big 12. Big crowd, and OU's emphatic win erases all doubt about the playoffs, they are in.
It didn't pay off. OU was in anyway. TCU got knocked out of a NY6 bowl.
Good point about TCU.
Maybe Notre Dame sneaks in?
Probably Washington.
(12-02-2017 03:57 PM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]I say BS on the elite name schools. They are old school, and most of them have falling to second fiddle like Miami florida. The hot name teams are in the G5, and adding any schools from the G5 would bring excitement to the conference. There are P5 schools that do not belong in P5 anymore while G5 schools who attract more of a tv following are getting the shaft. Schools should be paid for on tv performance in ratings instead of name brand.
Adding more schools would minimize Texas and Oklahoma options. And while you might disparage those old powers DavidSt, those are the very schools the G5 want to associate with. The top of the AAC would want to be in the B12 without those power schools.
(12-02-2017 10:05 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (12-02-2017 09:29 PM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]I think conferences shouldn’t be forced to have divisions if they have 12 teams. How dumb is that rule when 10 team conferences can reap the benefits?
The ACC could settle a lot of scheduling issues by not being forced to have divisions. Ultimately, divisions create fabricated yearly bouts like Texas A&M-South Carolina and Louisville-Virginia. It would have benefitted the old Big XII by allowing Oklahoma and Nebraska to play every year. All the Cali schools in the Pac 12 could go back to playing each other yearly as well.
The old school 12 team SEC (with GT and Tulane) didn’t have divisions and they were fine.
The only good thing about divisions is that it eliminates a back to back repeat game.
You mean like Fresno State and Boise State?
How about Georgia & Auburn???
(12-02-2017 09:21 PM)RUScarlets Wrote: [ -> ]Well playing 8 conf games gives a higher probability of avoiding a rematch in the CCG by default. Only take a game out if you schedule P5 OOC and not pull an SEC pre rivalry weekend.
I don't know what's going to happen this year. I think Bama's OOC is decent this year but they play that crap FCS game pre rivalry weekend and it may cost them.
3 quality OOCs should be required for P5 conferences only playing 8 conf games.
You Big Ten guys have no concept of how hard and challenging it is to play in the SEC. I’ll give you an example: for years, the Florida Gators always scheduled a bye weekend right before the Georgia-Florida game. Want to know what team won most of the time, pre-Mark Richt, pre-Kirby Smart? Try Florida, in a dominating fashion. Coach Richt, after unsuccessfully petitioning the UGa administration to get the Georgia-Florida game out of Jacksonville, finally figured out what UF was doing and why Florida had an edge in the rivalry game: a bye week before the game. Richt and UGa’s administration lobbied the SEC office for a bye week at the same time, and finally got it. The results are clear. LSU does the same thing before they play ‘Bama. While an OOC matchup on pre-rivalry weekend is likely to be boring, think of it how the NFL does the scheduling for NFC North or the AFC West, etc. Those are much harder divisions to win than say NFC South or even the NFC East. Similarly, the SEC is much more brutal than the Big Ten , the PAC 12, etc. The ACC , to its credit,is getting a lot harder to win as seen by Jimbo Fisher bolting FSU for Texas A&M, although I’m kinda surprised he didn’t give the Big Ten a serious look.
Big 10 East has proven to be the toughest division from a collective standpoint since Harbaugh showed up, followed by the SEC West. Do we need byes before every tough game now? Sorry but it just makes no sense. The season is long enough as it is. It starts Labor Day before the NFL season.
They need to stop scheduling FCS and add another conference opponent. Couldn't be more obvious than that. What if OSU had scheduled a MAC or North Dakota instead of the Iowa game? They probably still would have lost considering how bad they played, but still, it's a different animal.
Look at Bama's OOC schedule next year and tell me that's a championship schedule? I actually liked Bama this year over OSU, but next year they have no chance if they do not win the SEC outright with the best P5 record.