Or the SEC could spin off the West minus Alabama and Auburn.

(05-28-2019 10:01 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  This would make CFB better. Alabama and Georgia fans see the other visit their stadium once every 12 years. Ditto Duke and NC State. That needs to change.

It's very frustrating as a fan. Because of a cancellation, SC is having to go 17 years between hosting LSU. We go 15 years between trips to Tuscaloosa (which is probably a blessing, but still frustrating).

So last year would have been UCF vs Temple for the title.

Temple still wasn’t getting ranked higher than the MWC champ if they won that. I could see the lure of it however.

(05-29-2019 08:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 06:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 09:14 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Actually think they could get the ACC to support this effort. Doubt SEC and Big 10 would go along.

Yeah, the Big Ten and SEC are not going to be in favor of allowing a no-division CCG without a full round robin, for the same reason they were not in favor of it last time, i.e., because the ACC wanted it.

It could be a significant change for any conference compared to a season in which the conference had unbalanced divisions, not only because the CCG could match teams now in the same division, but because every team in a conference with more than 10 teams would play different schedules in a no division format than they do in a two division format.

You could theoretically end up with 3 unbeatens.

In the early 2000s, Ohio St. and Iowa both went 8-0 in the 11 team Big 10. With 14 teams, that would be more common and 3 would be possible.

Most controversial scenario, and one that would happen somewhere eventually if every conference did this, is two teams that didn't play each other tying for 2nd place, and of course if two teams tie for 2nd, only one of them plays in the CCG.

And as I mentioned above, scrapping the divisions and changing schedules could turn a good record into a title-contending record (which could make these ties more likely). Last season, for example, Penn State was 9-3 with losses to Ohio State, Michigan, and Michigan State. Maybe Penn State is 11-1 if they only have to play one of those three. Maybe LSU is 11-1 or 12-0 a few more times if they don't play Alabama every season.

(05-29-2019 06:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 09:14 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Actually think they could get the ACC to support this effort. Doubt SEC and Big 10 would go along.

Yeah, the Big Ten and SEC are not going to be in favor of allowing a no-division CCG without a full round robin, for the same reason they were not in favor of it last time, i.e., because the ACC wanted it.

It could be a significant change for any conference compared to a season in which the conference had unbalanced divisions, not only because the CCG could match teams now in the same division, but because every team in a conference with more than 10 teams would play different schedules in a no division format than they do in a two division format.

CORRECTION: The ACC didn't ask for "no-division CCG without a full round robin", they asked for complete deregulation... no wonder it was shut down!

As for what the Big Ten will or won't support, let me remind you that Jim Delaney has already stated he'd like to revisit the rule about division champs...
https://csnbbs.com/thread-865613.html

(05-29-2019 09:45 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 08:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 06:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 09:14 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Actually think they could get the ACC to support this effort. Doubt SEC and Big 10 would go along.

Yeah, the Big Ten and SEC are not going to be in favor of allowing a no-division CCG without a full round robin, for the same reason they were not in favor of it last time, i.e., because the ACC wanted it.

It could be a significant change for any conference compared to a season in which the conference had unbalanced divisions, not only because the CCG could match teams now in the same division, but because every team in a conference with more than 10 teams would play different schedules in a no division format than they do in a two division format.

You could theoretically end up with 3 unbeatens.

In the early 2000s, Ohio St. and Iowa both went 8-0 in the 11 team Big 10. With 14 teams, that would be more common and 3 would be possible.

Most controversial scenario, and one that would happen somewhere eventually if every conference did this, is two teams that didn't play each other tying for 2nd place, and of course if two teams tie for 2nd, only one of them plays in the CCG.

And as I mentioned above, scrapping the divisions and changing schedules could turn a good record into a title-contending record (which could make these ties more likely). Last season, for example, Penn State was 9-3 with losses to Ohio State, Michigan, and Michigan State. Maybe Penn State is 11-1 if they only have to play one of those three. Maybe LSU is 11-1 or 12-0 a few more times if they don't play Alabama every season.

Before you conclude that TIEs (and therefore, Tie-breakers) are so much worse than division-winners... 2011 UCLA would like to have a word with you!

(05-29-2019 11:18 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 09:45 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 08:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 06:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 09:14 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Actually think they could get the ACC to support this effort. Doubt SEC and Big 10 would go along.

Yeah, the Big Ten and SEC are not going to be in favor of allowing a no-division CCG without a full round robin, for the same reason they were not in favor of it last time, i.e., because the ACC wanted it.

It could be a significant change for any conference compared to a season in which the conference had unbalanced divisions, not only because the CCG could match teams now in the same division, but because every team in a conference with more than 10 teams would play different schedules in a no division format than they do in a two division format.

You could theoretically end up with 3 unbeatens.

In the early 2000s, Ohio St. and Iowa both went 8-0 in the 11 team Big 10. With 14 teams, that would be more common and 3 would be possible.

Most controversial scenario, and one that would happen somewhere eventually if every conference did this, is two teams that didn't play each other tying for 2nd place, and of course if two teams tie for 2nd, only one of them plays in the CCG.

And as I mentioned above, scrapping the divisions and changing schedules could turn a good record into a title-contending record (which could make these ties more likely). Last season, for example, Penn State was 9-3 with losses to Ohio State, Michigan, and Michigan State. Maybe Penn State is 11-1 if they only have to play one of those three. Maybe LSU is 11-1 or 12-0 a few more times if they don't play Alabama every season.

Before you conclude that TIEs (and therefore, Tie-breakers) are so much worse than division-winners... 2011 UCLA would like to have a word with you!

They had nothing to do with it. That was USC being on probation, per an infractions committee headed by the Miami athletic director, who brought the hammer down on USC while at the same time Nevin Shapiro was handing out money, gifts, hookers, etc. to Miami football players.

Everyone go to 12-15 teams, and allow a 4-team conference championship tournament, with 3 division champs and a wild card.

(05-29-2019 12:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 11:18 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 09:45 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 08:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 06:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Yeah, the Big Ten and SEC are not going to be in favor of allowing a no-division CCG without a full round robin, for the same reason they were not in favor of it last time, i.e., because the ACC wanted it.

It could be a significant change for any conference compared to a season in which the conference had unbalanced divisions, not only because the CCG could match teams now in the same division, but because every team in a conference with more than 10 teams would play different schedules in a no division format than they do in a two division format.

You could theoretically end up with 3 unbeatens.

In the early 2000s, Ohio St. and Iowa both went 8-0 in the 11 team Big 10. With 14 teams, that would be more common and 3 would be possible.

Most controversial scenario, and one that would happen somewhere eventually if every conference did this, is two teams that didn't play each other tying for 2nd place, and of course if two teams tie for 2nd, only one of them plays in the CCG.

And as I mentioned above, scrapping the divisions and changing schedules could turn a good record into a title-contending record (which could make these ties more likely). Last season, for example, Penn State was 9-3 with losses to Ohio State, Michigan, and Michigan State. Maybe Penn State is 11-1 if they only have to play one of those three. Maybe LSU is 11-1 or 12-0 a few more times if they don't play Alabama every season.

Before you conclude that TIEs (and therefore, Tie-breakers) are so much worse than division-winners... 2011 UCLA would like to have a word with you!

They had nothing to do with it. That was USC being on probation, per an infractions committee headed by the Miami athletic director, who brought the hammer down on USC while at the same time Nevin Shapiro was handing out money, gifts, hookers, etc. to Miami football players.

I think you just helped prove his point. With divisions, if the best team is on probation, you can end up with a 6-6 team in the CCG.

Practically the Same thing happened in the Big Ten in 2012. Both OSU and PSU on probation while 3rd place 4-4 Wisconsin made the CCG. Meanwhile 6-2 team in other division sat at home.

I suspect Aresco will get his wish about going to no divisions. I suspect this will be deregulated across the board. The SEC has no reason to oppose it, as it can keep its divisions if it wants or abandon them.

(05-29-2019 06:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect Aresco will get his wish about going to no divisions. I suspect this will be deregulated across the board. The SEC has no reason to oppose it, as it can keep its divisions if it wants or abandon them.

As Frank mentioned earlier, like the Big Ten, the SEC has reason to oppose it because it could help the ACC to woo ND. Not that ND would go to the SEC, but you don't help the competition.

(05-29-2019 06:10 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 06:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect Aresco will get his wish about going to no divisions. I suspect this will be deregulated across the board. The SEC has no reason to oppose it, as it can keep its divisions if it wants or abandon them.

Like the Big Ten, the SEC has reason to oppose it because it could help the ACC to woo ND. Not that ND would go to the SEC, but you don't help the competition.

I see Tank's point, but to me, if the ACC going to no divisions is all it would take for Notre Dame to join the ACC, then they are going to join anyway. I don't believe it is, I believe the overwhelming desire in the ND community is to remain independents. It's a key part of their historical identity.

Now, the one thing that ND officials have mentioned as possibly changing that is being able to compete for the national title. Notre Dame needs to know that there is a reasonable path for them as an independent to playing for the national championship.

And in that vein, this past season was huge for those who don't want the Irish to join the ACC - which is basically everyone but the ACC - because it proved to them that they could make the playoffs without being a conference member.

I would think the Big Ten and SEC would want Notre Dame to be a full member of the ACC.

If ND was in the ACC last year, they would have lost to Clemson before the Playoffs. That would have freed up a spot in the playoffs for either Georgia or Ohio State.

(05-29-2019 06:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect Aresco will get his wish about going to no divisions. I suspect this will be deregulated across the board. The SEC has no reason to oppose it, as it can keep its divisions if it wants or abandon them.

As a MAC fan where the geography is so tight to make divisions useless I support that.

(05-29-2019 06:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 06:10 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 06:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect Aresco will get his wish about going to no divisions. I suspect this will be deregulated across the board. The SEC has no reason to oppose it, as it can keep its divisions if it wants or abandon them.

Like the Big Ten, the SEC has reason to oppose it because it could help the ACC to woo ND. Not that ND would go to the SEC, but you don't help the competition.

I see Tank's point, but to me, if the ACC going to no divisions is all it would take for Notre Dame to join the ACC, then they are going to join anyway. I don't believe it is, I believe the overwhelming desire in the ND community is to remain independents. It's a key part of their historical identity.

Now, the one thing that ND officials have mentioned as possibly changing that is being able to compete for the national title. Notre Dame needs to know that there is a reasonable path for them as an independent to playing for the national championship.

And in that vein, this past season was huge for those who don't want the Irish to join the ACC - which is basically everyone but the ACC - because it proved to them that they could make the playoffs without being a conference member.

Well if the ACC tells Notre Dame it can pick half the teams it will play every year in conference play that goes a long way to getting the fighting irish to rethink conference affiliation.

(05-29-2019 06:10 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 06:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect Aresco will get his wish about going to no divisions. I suspect this will be deregulated across the board. The SEC has no reason to oppose it, as it can keep its divisions if it wants or abandon them.

As Frank mentioned earlier, like the Big Ten, the SEC has reason to oppose it because it could help the ACC to woo ND. Not that ND would go to the SEC, but you don't help the competition.

The ACC owns ND's non-football rights AND the rights to the contractually obligated 2 or 3 away games out of 5 FB games a year that the Irish must play against ACC teams through 2037, all of which will certainly be on the ACCESPN Channel. ND is also legally obligated to join the ACC if they do join a football league during that time period. The ACC doesn't need to do anything to woo the Irish for at least the next 18 years, if ever. The Irish also benefit from that arrangement as they get the access to the ACC bowl tie-ins and only have to sporadically play an actual solid ACC FB team during the regular season (as opposed to the playoffs, where their "luck" ran out this past season).
News & Observer Article

(05-29-2019 05:51 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 12:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 11:18 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 09:45 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 08:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  You could theoretically end up with 3 unbeatens.

In the early 2000s, Ohio St. and Iowa both went 8-0 in the 11 team Big 10. With 14 teams, that would be more common and 3 would be possible.

Most controversial scenario, and one that would happen somewhere eventually if every conference did this, is two teams that didn't play each other tying for 2nd place, and of course if two teams tie for 2nd, only one of them plays in the CCG.

And as I mentioned above, scrapping the divisions and changing schedules could turn a good record into a title-contending record (which could make these ties more likely). Last season, for example, Penn State was 9-3 with losses to Ohio State, Michigan, and Michigan State. Maybe Penn State is 11-1 if they only have to play one of those three. Maybe LSU is 11-1 or 12-0 a few more times if they don't play Alabama every season.

Before you conclude that TIEs (and therefore, Tie-breakers) are so much worse than division-winners... 2011 UCLA would like to have a word with you!

They had nothing to do with it. That was USC being on probation, per an infractions committee headed by the Miami athletic director, who brought the hammer down on USC while at the same time Nevin Shapiro was handing out money, gifts, hookers, etc. to Miami football players.

I think you just helped prove his point. With divisions, if the best team is on probation, you can end up with a 6-6 team in the CCG.

Practically the Same thing happened in the Big Ten in 2012. Both OSU and PSU on probation while 3rd place 4-4 Wisconsin made the CCG. Meanwhile 6-2 team in other division sat at home.

3rd place in the division Wisconsin won that Big Ten CCG...

(05-29-2019 08:28 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 06:10 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 06:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect Aresco will get his wish about going to no divisions. I suspect this will be deregulated across the board. The SEC has no reason to oppose it, as it can keep its divisions if it wants or abandon them.

As Frank mentioned earlier, like the Big Ten, the SEC has reason to oppose it because it could help the ACC to woo ND. Not that ND would go to the SEC, but you don't help the competition.

The ACC owns ND's non-football rights AND the rights to the contractually obligated 2 or 3 away games out of 5 FB games a year that the Irish must play against ACC teams through 2037, all of which will certainly be on the ACCESPN Channel. ND is also legally obligated to join the ACC if they do join a football league during that time period. The ACC doesn't need to do anything to woo the Irish for at least the next 18 years, if ever. The Irish also benefit from that arrangement as they get the access to the ACC bowl tie-ins and only have to sporadically play an actual solid ACC FB team during the regular season (as opposed to the playoffs, where their "luck" ran out this past season).
News & Observer Article

Obviously, full conference membership (i.e., those extra 3 FB games) for ND is the end game for the ACC. As long as ND resists that, there is room to woo. As you note, ND could easily wait out the remaining 18 years without joining in full. If it's something that the ACC wants, then the other conferences have an interest in denying it. Not to mention that I'm sure the Big Ten dreams about the remote possibility of ND eventually shacking up with them.

(05-29-2019 09:45 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 08:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  You could theoretically end up with 3 unbeatens.

In the early 2000s, Ohio St. and Iowa both went 8-0 in the 11 team Big 10. With 14 teams, that would be more common and 3 would be possible.

Most controversial scenario, and one that would happen somewhere eventually if every conference did this, is two teams that didn't play each other tying for 2nd place, and of course if two teams tie for 2nd, only one of them plays in the CCG.

With 15 teams and only 8 conference games (ie. easier with only 14 teams or with 9 games), it is a pretty easy mental exercise to show that you can ensure there is no set of 3 teams who don't play each other in a given season.

To the "more controversial" scenario, this means that if team 2a and 2b didn't play each other, then at least one of them has played team 1. If 2a lost to team 1 or 2b defeated team 1, then 2b should play team 1 in the CCG.

Random rant...
With 2 teams coming from a single division or table, I think record against the #1 team should play a factor in determining the #2. Take the following Big 12 scenario:

8-1 Oklahoma (lost to Texas)
7-2 Texas (lost to WVU)
7-2 WVU (lost to Oklahoma)

Conventional wisdom says Texas loses the tie-break to WVU for #2. However, WVU already played and lost to Oklahoma... should we give them another shot? A better tie-break would be to include the #1 team when determining tie-breakers for #2 (until only 1 team other than #1 remains). In the above scenario, all 3 teams are 1-1 against each other and the tie-breaker moves to the next step. Consider the addition of another team:

7-2 Iowa State (lost to Texas and OU, beat WVU)

The 3 7-2 teams are all 1-1 against each other. Should the tie-breaker move to record against the #5, 6, or 7 in conference and eventually eliminate Texas (sending ISU to the CCG) or should record against Oklahoma count, rewarding Texas for their victory over the best regular season team?

(05-29-2019 08:51 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 05:51 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 12:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 11:18 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 09:45 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Most controversial scenario, and one that would happen somewhere eventually if every conference did this, is two teams that didn't play each other tying for 2nd place, and of course if two teams tie for 2nd, only one of them plays in the CCG.

And as I mentioned above, scrapping the divisions and changing schedules could turn a good record into a title-contending record (which could make these ties more likely). Last season, for example, Penn State was 9-3 with losses to Ohio State, Michigan, and Michigan State. Maybe Penn State is 11-1 if they only have to play one of those three. Maybe LSU is 11-1 or 12-0 a few more times if they don't play Alabama every season.

Before you conclude that TIEs (and therefore, Tie-breakers) are so much worse than division-winners... 2011 UCLA would like to have a word with you!

They had nothing to do with it. That was USC being on probation, per an infractions committee headed by the Miami athletic director, who brought the hammer down on USC while at the same time Nevin Shapiro was handing out money, gifts, hookers, etc. to Miami football players.

I think you just helped prove his point. With divisions, if the best team is on probation, you can end up with a 6-6 team in the CCG.

Practically the Same thing happened in the Big Ten in 2012. Both OSU and PSU on probation while 3rd place 4-4 Wisconsin made the CCG. Meanwhile 6-2 team in other division sat at home.

3rd place in the division Wisconsin won that Big Ten CCG...

By 40.