(01-04-2023 09:23 AM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(01-04-2023 09:15 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-04-2023 09:09 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(01-03-2023 06:21 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-03-2023 02:48 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  I don't think we're going back to divisions, bottom line. There will always be unbalanced scheduling for conferences with more than 10 teams.

As for who plays in the CCG, I suspect it's the top 2 records, followed by CFP rankings. Rankings should be the top tiebreaker to give yourself the best shot at the CFP slot. If teams are not ranked in the CFP, then it gets messy.

There might be divisions for scheduling purposes, but there won't be divisions when it comes to the AACCG. There is no way they will pass over the 2nd place finisher in a division at 7-1/11-1, for the winner of the other division if they are 5-3/8-5. It just wouldn't make any sense.

Based on the preliminary fb schedule they've sent out and published at GTG, there won't be any divisions for scheduling either. We have more "east" teams than we do "west" next year.

I'm sure there won't. Just agreeing that the two highest ranked teams will play in the AACCG even if there are divisions.

Having divisions and then not having the winner of each division play in the CCG would be super strange.

I'd bet on not having divisions so that the top 2 teams always get to play each other in the CCG.

The issue becomes year to year unbalanced conference schedules where some teams have it way easier than others. Not sure what can be done about it and I still prefer no divisions to the garbage that is the B10 CCG every year.

The pressure drops from the schools playing to win a division title to the conference office scheduling games that will be fair to all.