Oh, Kaplony finally got himself banned.

Anyway, flawed premise, flawed analysis, flawed conclusion.

I think divisions will go away if the 12 team playoff is adopted. Nobody wants to miss because an 8-4 division winner pulls an upset in their CCG.

(10-31-2020 10:35 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(10-31-2020 10:29 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  It should be considered that schedules would in almost every instance have looked different which may not have resulted in the same outcomes.

On the contrary—the divisions and permanent cross division rivals that were in place during all of this would likely be very similar to the protected rivalries that divisionless play would certainly have built in.

Divisons are 5 to 7 protected games with 1 to 3 rotating games

Divisionless would be 2 or 3 protected games with 5 or 6 rotating games

A 4 year divisionless schedule for UNC would be (assuming 3 protected rivalries of Duke, NC State, and UVA) would be:

Year 1: @Duke, @UVA, v. NC State, v. Miami, v. BC, v. Wake, @Ga Tech, @Pitt
Year 2: v. Duke, v. UVA, @NC State, @FSU, @Syracuse, @Va Tech, v. Clemson, v. Louisville
Year 3: @Duke, @UVA, v. NC State, v. FSU, v. Syracuse, v. Va Tech, @Clemson, @Louisville
Year 4: v. Duke, v. UVA, @NC State, @Miami, @BC, @Wake, v GA Tech, v. Pitt

Currently all ACC schools have 7 locked in conference games and 1 rotating game

Years 1 and 4 would result in 6 games against current annual opponents and 2 rotating opponents...a net change of 1 opponents

Years 2 and 3 would result in 4 games against current annual opponents and 4 rotating opponents...a net change of 3 opponents

So depending on the year and the format used, each teams schedule would see a change of between 0 to 4 games

(10-31-2020 10:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-31-2020 10:25 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  But in 40 instances we get chaos. We have a tie between teams who did not play and/or ties between 3+ teams.

The problem stems from not playing every member of the conference.

OK, but this is only a problem if one assumed that H2H is a necessary tie-breaker. I do agree that football fans tend to accept H2H, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good tie-breaking method. In all of those "chaotic" scenarios other TBs can be used to break ties and determine title-game participants.

Random, often meaningless tiebreakers. Its better to decide it on the field.

(11-01-2020 05:45 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-01-2020 05:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I don’t understand all the angst for more conference games. Every conference game you add means a lost quality OOC matchup. For Clemson nine conference games means the only quality OOC games we’ll play from then on is South Carolina and the years we get assigned the parasites by the ACC office. We’d be replacing games with teams like Georgia, LSU, and Oklahoma with Duke, UVA, and UNC. Who would honestly make that trade?

With 3 OOC games, you can play 3 quality OOC opponents.

See USC.

(06-19-2021 02:41 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Oh, Kaplony finally got himself banned.

Anyway, flawed premise, flawed analysis, flawed conclusion.

If my post is so flawed, explain to me who should play for the 2008 ACC conference title.

(06-20-2021 06:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 02:41 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Oh, Kaplony finally got himself banned.

Anyway, flawed premise, flawed analysis, flawed conclusion.

If my post is so flawed, explain to me who should play for the 2008 ACC conference title.

In a divisonless ACC that year assuming no schedule changes the championship game would have been BC v GA Tech

BC, GA Tech, VA Tech, and FSU were all 5-3 and all the schools played each other that year

Breaking it down by H2H tiebreaker, BC and GA Tech were 2-1 while VA Tech and FSU were 1-2.

Going into the championship game the 2 highest ranked teams in the BCS were #15 GA Tech and #17 BC. VA Tech was #25 and FSU was #24.

IMO GA Tech got jipped because of division's as their wins against the best 2 teams in the confernce (BC and FSU) were not taken into consideration because they were cross divisional and while their loss to VA Tech was intradivisional.

Divisonless would have given a more fair result

Fighting Muskie still fighting this losing battle. Somebody in another thread already pointed out that there can be a three way tie within a division. Fall on your sword already, conferences should be allowed to determine their champion any way they so choose.

The Big 10 and SEC were sending their champs to the Rose and Sugar Bowls before the advent of divisions, all the while not playing a round robin.

(06-20-2021 06:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 02:41 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Oh, Kaplony finally got himself banned.

Anyway, flawed premise, flawed analysis, flawed conclusion.

If my post is so flawed, explain to me who should play for the 2008 ACC conference title.

The point is that had CCGs and divisions been deregulated before then, it would have been a different timeline with different events occurring, including the way the conference schedule was structured and how the teams performed. Applying new rules to historical data is not an accurate means of simulating what would have happened then. And obviously, the conferences would have developed rules for breaking ties, just like the NFL has. It's really not that hard.

Funny how the SEC and Big 10 played for decades without an equal schedule and they got along just fine.

(06-20-2021 06:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 02:41 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Oh, Kaplony finally got himself banned.

Anyway, flawed premise, flawed analysis, flawed conclusion.

If my post is so flawed, explain to me who should play for the 2008 ACC conference title.

Same way we have done it in basketball for the last 80 or so years -

Those at 5-3 go into a pool against each other VT/GT/FSU/BC.

BC and GT are 2-1 in the pool.
FSU and VT are 1-2 in the pool.

BC and GT play for title.