AFAIK, all FBS conferences currently decide who wins a division by the overall conference record rather than the record just within the division. Given that a team is not competing against anyone in the other division for a chance at the CCG, I think only the division record should count in determining the division champ. The conference record can be used in deciding home field advantage in the CCG if it's not played at a neutral site. But what do you think?
I prefer division champ decided by division record which is what I voted for. However, that is only reasonable with larger divisions or else there’s not enough data points.
I can understand wanting to count only the division record, especially since cross division play is not the same for all teams since it’s not a true round-robin. That would mean certain teams in one division will play the top team (or teams) in the other division while others wouldn’t have to.
It sounds good for "fairness", but doesn't serve the interests of the conference, or of teams trying to sell tickets.
The conference would like to have teams with the best overall record in the CCG. If you only count 5 or 6 division games to determine a division winner, then you increase the possibility of having a division winner with 2, 3, or 4 overall losses. Example: Suppose that Wisconsin wins 5 of 6 games vs. west division opponents and only 1 of 3 vs. east opponents, while Iowa loses to Wisconsin but wins the other 5 of 6 vs. west teams and all 3 vs. east teams. If you go by division record only, then you just put a team with 3 conference losses in the CCG instead of a team with only 1 loss.
As for trying to sell tickets: Now suppose you are the Northwestern AD and you have a home game in a few weeks vs. Maryland. You market that game as a Big Ten matchup, it impacts your team's place in the Big Ten standings. But if the Big Ten only counts division games in the standings, then your Maryland game is effectively another non-conference game, and has no more impact on your division race than a game against Wake Forest. Every team in a conference with divisions would face that situation, because they all have at least one home game each year vs. a conference opponent in the other division. Why would a conference intentionally devalue some of its conference games by making them not count in the standings?
(10-20-2018 12:04 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]It sounds good for "fairness", but doesn't serve the interests of the conference, or of teams trying to sell tickets.
The conference would like to have teams with the best overall record in the CCG. If you only count 5 or 6 division games to determine a division winner, then you increase the possibility of having a division winner with 2, 3, or 4 overall losses. Example: Suppose that Wisconsin wins 5 of 6 games vs. west division opponents and only 1 of 3 vs. east opponents, while Iowa loses to Wisconsin but wins the other 5 of 6 vs. west teams and all 3 vs. east teams. If you go by division record only, then you just put a team with 3 conference losses in the CCG instead of a team with only 1 loss.
As for trying to sell tickets: Now suppose you are the Northwestern AD and you have a home game in a few weeks vs. Maryland. You market that game as a Big Ten matchup, it impacts your team's place in the Big Ten standings. But if the Big Ten only counts division games in the standings, then your Maryland game is effectively another non-conference game, and has no more impact on your division race than a game against Wake Forest. Every team in a conference with divisions would face that situation, because they all have at least one home game each year vs. a conference opponent in the other division. Why would a conference intentionally devalue some of its conference games by making them not count in the standings?
These are fair points. In the current system, you could still have a division champ with 3 or more losses and have that champ win the CCG, but the odds of that would increase if you only count division games.
This question reveals one of the flaws in how conferences choose their champs, and really it is unsolvable.
In other leagues, the *opposite* approach is used, i.e., not only do non- division games count in the division standings, all games count. So e.g. in the NFL, in the NFC West the division champ is the team with the best overall record, not the team with the best record within the NFC West or even the NFC Conference.
This is as it should be, so in CFB, not only should non-division games count in the divisional standings, ALL games, OOC included, should too.
But, this is not do-able, because teams schedule their own OOC games, making it unfair.
It's a catch-22, and why conference champs should not be given auto-bids to any playoff system.
The size of the conference and the number of conference games played matters.
Sun Belt plays 8 league games but you only skip one cross-division opponent each year. There isn't much difference between the schedules of two contenders in a division. Two division rivals are going to play each other (one game) and play six common games (division and cross-division) they will only have one opponent not in common.
Pac-12 only skips two cross-division games. Two division rivals are going to play each other and at least six common opponents.
SEC plays 8 league games but skips five cross-division opponents, two division rivals are going to play each other and likely only five common opponents, If you are in the east you could go undefeated in the east and lose to Alabama and say LSU for a 6-2 record, while a team you beat draws Arkansas and Ole Miss and goes 7-1
you can't play 13 conf games
injuries, weather, illness, family are also factors
no matter what you do, you can't make perfect sch
The bigger issue is misalignment of conference championships and the national championships. It's silly that 11-1 Alabama can't play for a conference championship but can play for the national championship. That's backwards.
I'd like to see the CFP system absorb the conference championship system. It would be fun to take the P5 division winners and 6 at large wild card teams - including at least one G5 team - and create the CFP tournament. Each of the P5 conferences could still host a Round 1 matchup to host a regional playoff game.
Another option is to implement semifinals before the conference championship games. Which would work well in a P4 realignment scenario, where the the conference tournaments lead directly to the champs-only CFP.
Use the overall conference record. Use the division record as a tie-breaker.