(02-09-2021 12:45 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 05:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Divisionless is a hot mess. Back in the fall I did a review of the conference standings for every conference season that ended in a CCG and of those, 40 some would have ended in complete chaos if divisionless:

2 or more teams tying for 2nd with no H2H
3, 4, and even 5 way ties for 1st or 2nd

You do not want divisionless play.

Yeah, I don't like divisionless either. To me, the Big 12 setup, which guarantees a rematch in the CCG, is rinky-dink.

Sure, rematches can occur in conferences with divisions if you end up facing a team you play cross-division, like say LSU vs Florida. But it's much rarer.

I don't have any strong feelings for or against divisionless, but it's interesting: you're both opposing it but for contradictory reasons. Muskie dislikes divisionless play because because there may be teams at the top of the standings that haven't played each other, whereas Quo dislikes divisionless play because all teams in the conference play each other.

Not exactly. To clarify: I *prefer* no divisions as the naturally-best way to pick a champ, so long as all the teams *can* play each other, like in the Big 12. What bothers me is no divisions with all teams playing each other and then having a CCG, because if all the teams play each other, there's no competitive reason for a CCG. Whoever has the best record, with TBs starting with H2H if needed, is the proven champ. Having a CCG is really unfair to a team that finished an unbeaten first in the season.

Of course, the Big 12 has a CCG for money and 'data point' reasons. Which IMO, as someone not responsible for their finances and is indifferent to whether their teams make the playoffs, seem like rinky-dink reasons.

(02-09-2021 01:15 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 12:45 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 05:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Divisionless is a hot mess. Back in the fall I did a review of the conference standings for every conference season that ended in a CCG and of those, 40 some would have ended in complete chaos if divisionless:

2 or more teams tying for 2nd with no H2H
3, 4, and even 5 way ties for 1st or 2nd

You do not want divisionless play.

Yeah, I don't like divisionless either. To me, the Big 12 setup, which guarantees a rematch in the CCG, is rinky-dink.

Sure, rematches can occur in conferences with divisions if you end up facing a team you play cross-division, like say LSU vs Florida. But it's much rarer.

I don't have any strong feelings for or against divisionless, but it's interesting: you're both opposing it but for contradictory reasons. Muskie dislikes divisionless play because because there may be teams at the top of the standings that haven't played each other, whereas Quo dislikes divisionless play because all teams in the conference play each other.

Quo’s scenario with the Big 12 is the oddity that you get when you go divisionless AND play full round robin—the inevitable rematch.

The inherent flaw that I pointed out regarding divisionless is what you increasingly run into in these behemoth 14+ member conferences if you do divisionless—ties in the standings between schools who never faced off and ties between 3+ schools. You can only beat the teams on your schedule.

I agree that divisionless would be absurd for conferences that are too big for all teams to play each other, like all the other P5 conferences. You have to have divisions otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges schedules to pick the CCG teams.

But if they all can play each other, than divisionless is fine, provided there is also no CCG, because if you have full round-robin, the best regular season record is the natural champ.

(02-09-2021 01:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 01:15 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 12:45 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 05:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Divisionless is a hot mess. Back in the fall I did a review of the conference standings for every conference season that ended in a CCG and of those, 40 some would have ended in complete chaos if divisionless:

2 or more teams tying for 2nd with no H2H
3, 4, and even 5 way ties for 1st or 2nd

You do not want divisionless play.

Yeah, I don't like divisionless either. To me, the Big 12 setup, which guarantees a rematch in the CCG, is rinky-dink.

Sure, rematches can occur in conferences with divisions if you end up facing a team you play cross-division, like say LSU vs Florida. But it's much rarer.

I don't have any strong feelings for or against divisionless, but it's interesting: you're both opposing it but for contradictory reasons. Muskie dislikes divisionless play because because there may be teams at the top of the standings that haven't played each other, whereas Quo dislikes divisionless play because all teams in the conference play each other.

Quo’s scenario with the Big 12 is the oddity that you get when you go divisionless AND play full round robin—the inevitable rematch.

The inherent flaw that I pointed out regarding divisionless is what you increasingly run into in these behemoth 14+ member conferences if you do divisionless—ties in the standings between schools who never faced off and ties between 3+ schools. You can only beat the teams on your schedule.

I agree that divisionless would be absurd for conferences that are too big for all teams to play each other, like all the other P5 conferences. You have to have divisions otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges schedules to pick the CCG teams.

But if they all can play each other, than divisionless is fine, provided there is also no CCG, because if you have full round-robin, the best regular season record is the natural champ.

One of the positive aspects of the college basketball season is that teams have an opportunity to improve throughout the season. This encourages schools to schedule more challenging opponents OOC to better prepare for the postseason.

Football doesn't offer that opportunity. Often, the team a school finishes its regular season with is quite different than the one it started with. But a round robin with no CCG doesn't take that into account. Typically in basketball top teams play their best conference opponents twice so that each gets to play them on its home court. Again, football doesn't provide that opportunity.

To say that in a full round robin the best regular season record is the "natural" champ doesn't take into account scheduling inequities. In a ten team league like the Big XII, a full round robin means that some schools will have five home games and others only four. And sometimes, the team with the second best record might have suffered its only loss on the road against the one with the best record. Indeed, sometimes, a second place team might have only lost one road game, and have played only four home games.

To remedy such potential inequities, and to provide for the possibility of significant improvement from the beginning of the season to the end, a neutral site CCG is the only answer.

(02-06-2021 04:32 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Related note:

One of the reasons the pros keep their two halves is marketing their Championship Game. The SEC may be the only FBS conference where the two divisions have long-standing identities and where the conference may keep divisions even if offered otherwise.

MAC divisions also are beginning to have an attatchment.

The culture of the MAC West is very different from the Cleveland centric MAC East.

Divisions make sense when you have 4 or 5 mostly regional teams and rivals. I like pro sports structures that have smaller divisions.

Smaller divisions won't really work for college football until we get some significant restructuring to the post-season that expands conference championship participation or perhaps even somehow merges the CFP and CCG structure.

I wonder if the NCAA does not change its CCG rules, if conferences might try doing a champions week flexible type schedule.

You know, like the Big Ten tried to do in 2020, where the conference schedule for the last week of the regular season is flexible and the 2 best teams in the conference meet in the CCG.

(02-11-2021 08:10 PM)goofus Wrote:  I wonder if the NCAA does not change its CCG rules, if conferences might try doing a champions week flexible type schedule.

You know, like the Big Ten tried to do in 2020, where the conference schedule for the last week of the regular season is flexible and the 2 best teams in the conference meet in the CCG.

The problem with that type of solution is that all but 1 of the tack-on games will not have championship implications and will be largely against non-rivals. Best way to do it may be to predetermine 7 secondary rivalry games for this week and switch two in order to stage a non-exempt CCG. You’d still need predetermine home sites and “divisions” are the natural way to divvy-up who gets those each year. Also, what do you do if two “home” teams finish #1 and #2?

(02-09-2021 02:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 01:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 01:15 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 12:45 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yeah, I don't like divisionless either. To me, the Big 12 setup, which guarantees a rematch in the CCG, is rinky-dink.

Sure, rematches can occur in conferences with divisions if you end up facing a team you play cross-division, like say LSU vs Florida. But it's much rarer.

I don't have any strong feelings for or against divisionless, but it's interesting: you're both opposing it but for contradictory reasons. Muskie dislikes divisionless play because because there may be teams at the top of the standings that haven't played each other, whereas Quo dislikes divisionless play because all teams in the conference play each other.

Quo’s scenario with the Big 12 is the oddity that you get when you go divisionless AND play full round robin—the inevitable rematch.

The inherent flaw that I pointed out regarding divisionless is what you increasingly run into in these behemoth 14+ member conferences if you do divisionless—ties in the standings between schools who never faced off and ties between 3+ schools. You can only beat the teams on your schedule.

I agree that divisionless would be absurd for conferences that are too big for all teams to play each other, like all the other P5 conferences. You have to have divisions otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges schedules to pick the CCG teams.

But if they all can play each other, than divisionless is fine, provided there is also no CCG, because if you have full round-robin, the best regular season record is the natural champ.

One of the positive aspects of the college basketball season is that teams have an opportunity to improve throughout the season. This encourages schools to schedule more challenging opponents OOC to better prepare for the postseason.

Football doesn't offer that opportunity. Often, the team a school finishes its regular season with is quite different than the one it started with. But a round robin with no CCG doesn't take that into account. Typically in basketball top teams play their best conference opponents twice so that each gets to play them on its home court. Again, football doesn't provide that opportunity.

To say that in a full round robin the best regular season record is the "natural" champ doesn't take into account scheduling inequities. In a ten team league like the Big XII, a full round robin means that some schools will have five home games and others only four. And sometimes, the team with the second best record might have suffered its only loss on the road against the one with the best record. Indeed, sometimes, a second place team might have only lost one road game, and have played only four home games.

To remedy such potential inequities, and to provide for the possibility of significant improvement from the beginning of the season to the end, a neutral site CCG is the only answer.

I agree with the first paragraph about OOC, but since no conferences count OOC games in their standings, it is moot for the purposes of this discussion.

The rest of your post scores points with me. Yes, the best kind of round-robin is the kind basketball teams play, one that is home-and-away with everyone, because as you say, maybe the two best teams had a close game and the decisive factor is one of them had home field advantage just through the luck of the schedule.

Still, it doesn't score enough points with me to overcome my position that a CCG is unnecessary if we have a full RR, even of the limited kind in college football. To me, the worst injustice in either situation (CCG vs no CCG) is that an undefeated team might have to beat the second-place team twice, whereas the second-place team might have to beat the undefeated team once merely because the second game is called "the championship game". Examples include the 2011 BCS title game (LSU vs Alabama) and this year's ACC title game, where ND and Clemson split games, because Clemson got a second bite at the apple. Alabama and Clemson were crowned champs merely because the game they won was arbitrarily labeled the "championship game".

Those situations have a "heads I win, tails we flip one more time" feel to them to me.

In those situations, the fairest thing would be if the second-place team wins the labeled championship game, then they play a third game to settle it. But of course that won't happen.