(06-11-2019 12:52 AM)chester Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 09:13 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  The requirement is a round robin schedule for divisions. Either one big one (big 12) or two small ones (sunbelt).

Man, that rule is so goofy. Applying it to all conferences is, anyway. It makes no sense to allow for accountable cross-divisional play without also allowing at least some conferences to opt-out of divisions if they like. No divided conference wants to discount cross-division games, apparently, and so the two-division requirement for an exempt CG leaves some in a very awkward position.

The origin of the rule is a large conference (in I-AA, now FCS) wanting to have two divisions and a CCG. The round-robin limitation, for a conference with divisions, ensures that the divisions are meaningful. A random assignment of teams that didn't all play each other into divisions would not be meaningful, and might even be manipulated to try and make a certain CCG matchup more likely.

Your beef is not with that part of it, it's with the requirement that divisions are required at all (in conferences >10 teams) as a prerequisite for staging a CCG. That particular wrinkle in the rule was insisted upon by the Big Ten as a condition of allowing a rule change that permits conferences with ≤ 10 teams (mainly the Big 12) to stage a CCG without divisions.

My guess is that the rule as it stands now won't be changed, and that the Big Ten won't be the only conference that wants to leave the rule as is.