With the Conference Championship Games Set --with one exception, bumpity bump bump

SEC. No debate, Georgia vs Alabama by any method you choose.
Or would we have 11-1 Texas vs Georgia?

Big Ten. We have Michigan vs Iowa, East vs West. By rankings, we'd have Michigan vs Ohio State in a rematch.
Or Michigan vs Washington in a clash of unbeatens.

ACC, no debate. 7-1 (10-2) Louisville gets their shot at FSU.

Big 12, the tiebreakers gave us the no-rematch matchup, Texas vs Oklahoma State.

PAC-12, we have a Washington-Oregon rematch. There are no ties to break, but if we went hardcore "no rematches", we'd see Washington-Arizona. But "hardcore no rematches" was about 16 team superconferences, and nobody liked hardcore no rematches, at all.

From west to east, the G5 CCGs.

The Mountain West is a complete tossup, waiting for the rankings formula to sort out Boise State, San Jose STate and UNLV.
My "no rematches" tiebreaker assumed that there would be a clear no 1.
"No rematches" would give us -- Boise STate vs UNLV, with the rankings deciding home field? Would anyone see that as unjust to San Jose State, who lost to UNLV?

But would the Spartans have had the motivation to pull that game out if a chance at a conference title weren't on the line?

AAC. SMU vs Tulane. Both undefeated in conference. No tiebreaker.
CUSA. Liberty vs NMSU. A rematch, but it's a 9 school league, whaddayagonnado?
MAC Miami vs Toledoa. A rematch, but it's East vs West, and even without divisions, it's 8-0 vs 7-1 with no ties.
Sun Belt, James Madison vs Troy. East vs West, both schools 7-1, no rematch, no tiebreakers (except for home field).

Frankly, the Oregon-Washington rematch is the CCG I most want to watch. The Ducks, which lost a nail biter in the regular season, are now a 9 point favorite in the rematch, and I think that's about right. Wouldn't the PAC want its best team in the CFP?

(11-26-2023 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  Frankly, the Oregon-Washington rematch is the CCG I most want to watch. The Ducks, which lost a nail biter in the regular season, are now a 9 point favorite in the rematch, and I think that's about right. Wouldn't the PAC want its best team in the CFP?

Yes, but that's the part, a 12 team league with two top 10 teams. The future is, who plays 12-0 Michigan or 12-0 Washington next week, 11-1 Oregon or 11-1 Ohio State?

Obviously it's hard to wrap a heads around a simulation where one third of the conference didn't play each other next but they will play each other next year, but that's what I'm trying to think through

I guess what I would really like to see is for conference championship games to go away altogether, replaced by an expanded playoff in which the top teams from each conference are seeded so they won't play each other until the semifinals of the CFP.

For many years, before the advent of the CCG, co-champions worked just fine. No reason why it couldn't in the future.

The MWC just dodged having a rematch of yesterday’s UNLV-SJSU game in its CCG.

The problem is that the loser of that game rather than the winner is going to the CCG.

(11-26-2023 08:48 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  The MWC just dodged having a rematch of yesterday’s UNLV-SJSU game in its CCG.

The problem is that the loser of that game rather than the winner is going to the CCG.

Maybe that is a better “first” tie-breaker. Did your team win the final week? Would avoid teams backing into the game. Flipping over to the Big Ten, an immediate OSU-UM rematch would occur o my if there are no other teams with 1 or fewer losses.

(11-26-2023 09:42 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-26-2023 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  Frankly, the Oregon-Washington rematch is the CCG I most want to watch. The Ducks, which lost a nail biter in the regular season, are now a 9 point favorite in the rematch, and I think that's about right. Wouldn't the PAC want its best team in the CFP?

Yes, but that's the part, a 12 team league with two top 10 teams. The future is, who plays 12-0 Michigan or 12-0 Washington next week, 11-1 Oregon or 11-1 Ohio State?

Obviously it's hard to wrap a heads around a simulation where one third of the conference didn't play each other next but they will play each other next year, but that's what I'm trying to think through

I don’t think the concept is that difficult - there will be a tiebreaker process just like in the NFL where it comes down to teams that may or may not have played head-to-head. Whether people like the specific tiebreaker criteria in a given situation may be a different matter, but it’s pretty common throughout sports.

I just don’t think it’s wise, fair, or optimal to have a “no rematch” rule. If the best 2 teams are playing a second game against each other in a CCG, then so be it. You know what the TV networks love? Rematches of heated rivalries for the highest stakes possible! See Yankees vs. Red Sox, Cowboys vs. any NFC East rival, etc. The networks don’t see a problem with a Michigan-Ohio State rematch. Instead, they see $$$$ - they WANT that rematch to happen.

Now, when it comes to playoff matchups themselves, I can understand shifting a seed to avoid a first round game that’s a rematch (similar to how the seeding can shift in the NCAA Tournament to do the same). However, there should never be a binary decision where a team straight up cannot qualify for the playoff at all simply to avoid a rematch (as would be the case if that rule is applied to a CCG).

(11-27-2023 12:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-26-2023 09:42 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-26-2023 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  Frankly, the Oregon-Washington rematch is the CCG I most want to watch. The Ducks, which lost a nail biter in the regular season, are now a 9 point favorite in the rematch, and I think that's about right. Wouldn't the PAC want its best team in the CFP?

Yes, but that's the part, a 12 team league with two top 10 teams. The future is, who plays 12-0 Michigan or 12-0 Washington next week, 11-1 Oregon or 11-1 Ohio State?

Obviously it's hard to wrap a heads around a simulation where one third of the conference didn't play each other next but they will play each other next year, but that's what I'm trying to think through

I don’t think the concept is that difficult - there will be a tiebreaker process just like in the NFL where it comes down to teams that may or may not have played head-to-head. Whether people like the specific tiebreaker criteria in a given situation may be a different matter, but it’s pretty common throughout sports.

I just don’t think it’s wise, fair, or optimal to have a “no rematch” rule. If the best 2 teams are playing a second game against each other in a CCG, then so be it. You know what the TV networks love? Rematches of heated rivalries for the highest stakes possible! See Yankees vs. Red Sox, Cowboys vs. any NFC East rival, etc. The networks don’t see a problem with a Michigan-Ohio State rematch. Instead, they see $$$$ - they WANT that rematch to happen.

Now, when it comes to playoff matchups themselves, I can understand shifting a seed to avoid a first round game that’s a rematch (similar to how the seeding can shift in the NCAA Tournament to do the same). However, there should never be a binary decision where a team straight up cannot qualify for the playoff at all simply to avoid a rematch (as would be the case if that rule is applied to a CCG).

I've downgraded my proposed "no rematches" rule from a hard rule (last year's idea) to a tiebreaker.

Over time, if the Michigan - Ohio STate game on Thanksgiving weekend doesn't determine anything but seeding a few spots up or down in the national rankings, then it's going to lose luster and lose some TV value. Let Michigan and Ohio STate knock each other out of the running for the Rose Bowl, with the winner facing USC or Penn STate or Nebraksa for the CCG -- or, this year, Washington.

College football is (or should be) haunted by the specter of what Calipari once said about winning hte SEC Tournament, "We don't hang three letter banners."

If there were a 8-1 Big Ten team this year who didn't get a shot at Michigan, they should get the shot over 8-1 Ohio State. Ohio State goes to the first round.