A while ago, when the SEC went to 16 and then the Big Ten to 16, I suggested that the CCG be the No. 1 team vs the top team they hadn't played against. https://csnbbs.com/thread-959903.html

Everyone hated that idea. Nobody wanted to see Ohio State in the CCG next year agaisnt the top finisher out of USC, UCLA, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Rutgers and Maryland. (This was before ORegon and Washington to the Big Ten, but opinions on the matter were pretty clear and pretty vehement.) Nobody wanted to see 12-0 Texas next year against the top finisher out of Mizzou, LSU, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn and South Carolina.

(Unless that was the No. 1 vs No.2 matchup of course.)

But I think the merits of my idea have a place. Without divisions for 16, 17, 18 team leagues you're going to have a lot of teams with the same 8-0, 8-1, 7-2 conference records.

Looking at the Big 12 right now, assuming that all the favorites win next weekend, you've got Texas at #1 and a three-team pileup at #2, OU, OSU, KSU. If Texas poops the bed, you've got a four-team pileup.

Why isn't "avoid rematches" the best tiebreaker?

EDIT: How this would work this year in the big 12.

(Everybody wins). #1 Texas played OU and Kansas State. Didn't play Oklahoma State. Simple.

(Texas loses, everybody else wins). 4-way tie at 7-2. Go through the usual list of tiebreakers to figure out who's No.1, and then the CCG is either Texas-Oklahoma State or Oklahoma- Kansas State.

A “avoid rematches” rule seems arbitrary if the end goal is to pit the two best teams against each other.

(11-19-2023 09:33 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  A “avoid rematches” rule seems arbitrary if the end goal is to pit the two best teams against each other.

When everybody (or multiple teams) have the same record, "best team" is a pretty aribitary judgement anyway. Avoiding rematches protects top regular season games, at least somewhat. (Big Ten CCG would be an OSU-Michigan rematch no matter what, because the winner is 9-0, the loser is 8-1 and everyone else is 7-2 at best)

I’m not a fan of rematches, so I’m thrilled it was not FSU vs Clemson in the ACCCG like most expected it would be. Somebody will eventually get screwed out of a conference championship game appearance because of a tie breaker, but just like the playoff picture; shoulda won all of your games and you wouid not have been left out.

TV would never go along with it in a million years.

I’ll link to my idea from that thread.

(11-23-2022 06:41 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(11-23-2022 06:08 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(11-23-2022 05:39 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Will repeat (my only slightly less asinine idea) that the rivalry game should be an elimination game.

That is indeed an asinine idea (more so than what was previously proposed).

Imagine The Game this weekend played completely vanilla as the only game that counts for anything (aside from undefeated seasons which is a rarity for two teams at this stage) is the CCG.

You described well what this weekend would look like with a standard divisionless structure: this week's game would mean nothing for the conference or national playoff races. And that would be tragic.

What I was saying was the opposite: the team that loses "The Game" is eliminated from the Big Ten race and will be relegated to hosting a first-round playoff game. It keeps all the tension of the rivalry IN their rivalry game played on rivalry weekend.

And it is not as if it allows James Franklin to slink into the BTCCG, they still 'have' to beat Michigan State, otherwise the CCG spot will effectively default to the West champion (with the caveat that Iowa no longer has the tie-breaker over the winner of Paul Bunyan's Axe).

Making the final conference game an elimination game (or at least a first tie-breaker) is essentially what it is this year for UM-OSU. No reason to call it something abhorant.

I can see where the OP rule makes ‘more’ sense as conferences become larger, but it still makes things arbitrary. If Team A (say, Penn State) defeated Team B (say, Iowa) and both are 7-2, it is arbitrary that the competitive victory of Team A is overturned if the “wrong” team wins The Game.

(11-19-2023 09:46 AM)stever20 Wrote:  TV would never go along with it in a million years.

Well, nobody likes my idea of hiring a WWF style "heel authority figure" to break ties and set playoff matchups for maximum controversy and drama, and TV would love that.

(11-19-2023 10:00 AM)Crayton Wrote:  I’ll link to my idea from that thread.

(11-23-2022 06:41 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(11-23-2022 06:08 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(11-23-2022 05:39 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Will repeat (my only slightly less asinine idea) that the rivalry game should be an elimination game.

That is indeed an asinine idea (more so than what was previously proposed).

Imagine The Game this weekend played completely vanilla as the only game that counts for anything (aside from undefeated seasons which is a rarity for two teams at this stage) is the CCG.

You described well what this weekend would look like with a standard divisionless structure: this week's game would mean nothing for the conference or national playoff races. And that would be tragic.

What I was saying was the opposite: the team that loses "The Game" is eliminated from the Big Ten race and will be relegated to hosting a first-round playoff game. It keeps all the tension of the rivalry IN their rivalry game played on rivalry weekend.

And it is not as if it allows James Franklin to slink into the BTCCG, they still 'have' to beat Michigan State, otherwise the CCG spot will effectively default to the West champion (with the caveat that Iowa no longer has the tie-breaker over the winner of Paul Bunyan's Axe).

Making the final conference game an elimination game is essentially what it is this year for UM-OSU. No reason to call it something abhorant.

I can see where the OP rule makes ‘more’ sense as conferences become larger, but it still makes things arbitrary. If Team A (say, Penn State) defeated Team B (say, Iowa) and both are 7-2, it is arbitrary that the competitive victory of Team A is overturned if the “wrong” team wins The Game.

It's all pretty arbitary, now that I've cut the idea back to just tiebreakers. If Penn State and Iowa are both 8-1, while Wisconsin is 9-0, I think "Who should Wisconsin play" is the real question, not "who won between Penn State and Iowa" or if they didn't play each other, record against common opponents or total MOV or computer rankings.

Yes, it devalues head-to-head. But doesn't head-to-head devalue the rest of the schedule? If Ohio State beat Penn STate, but lost to Michigan and OSU and PSU are both 8-1 because Penn State lost to USC, doesn't putting Penn STate ahead of Ohio State devalue the USC loss?

(11-19-2023 09:30 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  A while ago, when the SEC went to 16 and then the Big Ten to 16, I suggested that the CCG be the No. 1 team vs the top team they hadn't played against. https://csnbbs.com/thread-959903.html

Everyone hated that idea. Nobody wanted to see Ohio State in the CCG next year agaisnt the top finisher out of USC, UCLA, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Rutgers and Maryland. (This was before ORegon and Washington to the Big Ten, but opinions on the matter were pretty clear and pretty vehement.) Nobody wanted to see 12-0 Texas next year against the top finisher out of Mizzou, LSU, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn and South Carolina.

(Unless that was the No. 1 vs No.2 matchup of course.)

But I think the merits of my idea have a place. Without divisions for 16, 17, 18 team leagues you're going to have a lot of teams with the same 8-0, 8-1, 7-2 conference records.

Looking at the Big 12 right now, assuming that all the favorites win next weekend, you've got Texas at #1 and a three-team pileup at #2, OU, OSU, KSU. If Texas poops the bed, you've got a four-team pileup.

Why isn't "avoid rematches" the best tiebreaker?

EDIT: How this would work this year in the big 12.

(Everybody wins). #1 Texas played OU and Kansas State. Didn't play Oklahoma State. Simple.

(Texas loses, everybody else wins). 4-way tie at 7-2. Go through the usual list of tiebreakers to figure out who's No.1, and then the CCG is either Texas-Oklahoma State or Oklahoma- Kansas State.

I totally agree but I would change it to only Championship games if the 2 teams didn't play. No rematches are allowed since H2H has already been determined. So most wouldn't have them at all but like others said TV wouldn't go for it and we wouldn't be sure there would be a game each season.

But just like the pointless Conf Champ games in NCAAB, we are arbitrarily assigning value to the same game because it happens later in the year during some designated time period.

Playoffs were created to match up teams that didn't play during the regular season - WS, Original Stanley Cup, Champions League. These are the best examples of needing playoffs whereas NBA, NHL, Conf Champ Games are just blatant money grabs.

I'm trying to figure out when the US became obsessed with "bad" teams winning titles. Texas Rangers were the 8th best team this year and they finally won. Is that what everyone wants to see in CFB too, #8 vs #14 for title?

I watched the CFL Grey Cup yesterday, betting heavy on the Underdog Montreal. They won of course since Underdogs have now won 5 of last 7 finals. In fact, the team with the highest win total has only won 4 of last 9 titles. I had to turn it off in disgust due to the truly arbitrary nature of it all.

Eventually rematches will probably not be a problem. The SEC and Big Ten dictate the rules. Who is to stop them from going to 4 divisions of 6 and creating their own postseason? They could have each team play their 5 division opponents and one each from the other divisions for 8 games. Then the top teams from each division are seeded and they play a game 1v4 and 2v3. The two winners get autobids to the playoff and the losers are still eligible as an at-large. That’s the SEC way. lol

(11-19-2023 09:33 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  A “avoid rematches” rule seems arbitrary if the end goal is to pit the two best teams against each other.

The end goal is to make the most attractive TV game. Sometimes that's the two best Sometimes it's not

(11-19-2023 09:33 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  A “avoid rematches” rule seems arbitrary if the end goal is to pit the two best teams against each other.

Rematches totally suck, but I'd much rather see 11-1 Alabama against 12-0 Georgia instead of 8-4 Florida against 12-0 Georgia in the SEC CCG.

(11-20-2023 12:53 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 09:33 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  A “avoid rematches” rule seems arbitrary if the end goal is to pit the two best teams against each other.

Rematches totally suck, but I'd much rather see 11-1 Alabama against 12-0 Georgia instead of 8-4 Florida against 12-0 Georgia in the SEC CCG.

There’s that aspect and also no P4 league wants to take *any* chance that their champion somehow won’t get the first round bye. The SEC isn’t going to want to even give the CFP committee any ammunition at all to let Tulane to get that direct bye to a quarterfinal Sugar Bowl if Florida upsets Alabama. As a result, every incentive is in place to have the top 2 teams in a conference play each other regardless of rematches. (I continuously think the first round bye reward is a very underrated aspect of the new system by a lot of fans while overrating the binary “in or out” playoff qualification aspect by comparison.)

(11-19-2023 09:33 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  A “avoid rematches” rule seems arbitrary if the end goal is to pit the two best teams against each other.

It's also "less fair" because the one-loss team who isn't a rematch lost to someone WORSE than the first place team.



A better rule that should have been made way back in the day would just be that conferences have to play a full round robin (or double round-robin in longer-season sports) with nothing in between. Which means conferences can't mathematically be larger than 13 FBS teams, but effectively means 10.

THAT would fix damned near everything in college sports.

I prefer taking the two highest ranked teams. That would have given us Georgia-Alabama last year, as well as Michigan-Ohio State and Florida State-Clemson, all much better matchups than what we actually ended up with.

They should have a mini-game using the overtime rules. Let's pretend that the current standings were the final standings.

You would have Tulane-SMU-UTSA with the Top 2 advancing to the CCG.

OU, K-State, OSU playing to determine who plays Texas.

NMSA v. Jacksonville State to see who gets Liberty or who gets death?

AFA-San Jose State-Boise State with winner to play UNLV.

These would be big TV draws and could be played on one night, with an hour allocated to each event.

(11-20-2023 02:42 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  I prefer taking the two highest ranked teams. That would have given us Georgia-Alabama last year, as well as Michigan-Ohio State and Florida State-Clemson, all much better matchups than what we actually ended up with.

That's definitely a concern at the G5 level, and maybe a concern for the ACC and Big 12 --you could easily imagine FSU and Clemson playing in the regular season, then one being passed over for say, Pitt or Wake Forest, getting upended in the CCG and then you see the G5 champ in the quarterfinal and the ACC champ in the first round.

But for the SEC and Big Ten, they should be deep enough that the No. 3 team is also a playoff team.

Looking at the CFP rankings right now and next year's schedules, if Ohio State beats Michigan, they'd get Washington in the CCG instead of a Michigan rematch. If Michigan wins, they'd get....(Ohio State, ORegon, Washington)... Penn State.

(11-20-2023 12:53 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 09:33 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  A “avoid rematches” rule seems arbitrary if the end goal is to pit the two best teams against each other.

Rematches totally suck, but I'd much rather see 11-1 Alabama against 12-0 Georgia instead of 8-4 Florida against 12-0 Georgia in the SEC CCG.

Imagine a situation where Ohio St and Michigan go into their game at 11-0 and know they will play each other in the CCG.

(11-19-2023 10:07 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 10:00 AM)Crayton Wrote:  I can see where the OP rule makes ‘more’ sense as conferences become larger, but it still makes things arbitrary. If Team A (say, Penn State) defeated Team B (say, Iowa) and both are 7-2, it is arbitrary that the competitive victory of Team A is overturned if the “wrong” team wins The Game.

It's all pretty arbitary, now that I've cut the idea back to just tiebreakers. If Penn State and Iowa are both 8-1, while Wisconsin is 9-0, I think "Who should Wisconsin play" is the real question, not "who won between Penn State and Iowa" or if they didn't play each other, record against common opponents or total MOV or computer rankings.

Yes, it devalues head-to-head. But doesn't head-to-head devalue the rest of the schedule? If Ohio State beat Penn STate, but lost to Michigan and OSU and PSU are both 8-1 because Penn State lost to USC, doesn't putting Penn STate ahead of Ohio State devalue the USC loss?

Yep. My reading comprehension was a little sub-par there; I got distracted by last year's discussion.

I am fine with 'any' tie-breaker if conference records are the same. And h2h with #1 is a fine one to be near the top, even over h2h between tied teams. When the Big 12 first moved to divisionless, I suggested something similar (all games were rematches, but the team that lost to #1 should not get a 2nd crack). In the SEC cross-division games can be imbalanced, so there too I thought something similar could be incorporated.

Coaches, ADs, and administrators will want any tie breakers to focus on comparing apples to apples. This is why "common opponents" is often listed above "strength of conference record"; even if the "uncommon" opponents of one team are far more difficult, it is the "common" ones that are apples-to-apples.

One of the issues with using no rematches to break a tie is that it could penalize winning. Let us use a near example in the ACC where VT upsets both FSU and Louisville. Because VT beat #1 FSU (instead of a middling team like Miami or Clemson), they miss the CCG despite also beating #2 Louisville.

7-1 Florida State (loss to VT)
6-2 Louisville (loss to Pitt+VT)
6-2 Virginia Tech (loss to NCST+UVA)

I agree that 'if' it is the rule, it is not less bad or less arbitrary than the existing rule (after all, VT lost to lowly NCST and UVA [not to mention Purdue and Rutgers], do we really want them?). But, because it puts emphasis on scheduling quirks instead of controllables, it won't be favored by decision-makers.

(11-22-2023 06:18 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 10:07 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 10:00 AM)Crayton Wrote:  I can see where the OP rule makes ‘more’ sense as conferences become larger, but it still makes things arbitrary. If Team A (say, Penn State) defeated Team B (say, Iowa) and both are 7-2, it is arbitrary that the competitive victory of Team A is overturned if the “wrong” team wins The Game.

It's all pretty arbitary, now that I've cut the idea back to just tiebreakers. If Penn State and Iowa are both 8-1, while Wisconsin is 9-0, I think "Who should Wisconsin play" is the real question, not "who won between Penn State and Iowa" or if they didn't play each other, record against common opponents or total MOV or computer rankings.

Yes, it devalues head-to-head. But doesn't head-to-head devalue the rest of the schedule? If Ohio State beat Penn STate, but lost to Michigan and OSU and PSU are both 8-1 because Penn State lost to USC, doesn't putting Penn STate ahead of Ohio State devalue the USC loss?

Yep. My reading comprehension was a little sub-par there; I got distracted by last year's discussion.

I am fine with 'any' tie-breaker if conference records are the same. And h2h with #1 is a fine one to be near the top, even over h2h between tied teams. When the Big 12 first moved to divisionless, I suggested something similar (all games were rematches, but the team that lost to #1 should not get a 2nd crack). In the SEC cross-division games can be imbalanced, so there too I thought something similar could be incorporated.

Coaches, ADs, and administrators will want any tie breakers to focus on comparing apples to apples. This is why "common opponents" is often listed above "strength of conference record"; even if the "uncommon" opponents of one team are far more difficult, it is the "common" ones that are apples-to-apples.

One of the issues with using no rematches to break a tie is that it could penalize winning. Let us use a near example in the ACC where VT upsets both FSU and Louisville. Because VT beat #1 FSU (instead of a middling team like Miami or Clemson), they miss the CCG despite also beating #2 Louisville.

7-1 Florida State (loss to VT)
6-2 Louisville (loss to Pitt+VT)
6-2 Virginia Tech (loss to NCST+UVA)

I agree that 'if' it is the rule, it is not less bad or less arbitrary than the existing rule (after all, VT lost to lowly NCST and UVA [not to mention Purdue and Rutgers], do we really want them?). But, because it puts emphasis on scheduling quirks instead of controllables, it won't be favored by decision-makers.

In your Virginia Tech example, nobody is going to mind losing an 8-4 Virginia Tech from the CCG. But you're right, it requires decision-makers to shift philosophy and ponder the fact that tiebreakers are arbitrary nonsense and there is no objectively right or wrong answer.

You might be right about what hte decisionmakers will think and feel.
I'm asking them (not really them, I'm asking us as Fantasy Conference Commissioners) to imagine the situation a few years down the line, after a couple of immediate-rematch CCGs, especially in the Big Ten. That's going to depress ratings for the Ohio State - Michigan game, and for the Big Ten CCG.

And I'm asking the reader to imagine a 2024 where 11-0 Ohio State beats 11-0 Michigan on Thanksgiving Saturday, and you have an 11-1 Michigan tied with an 11-1 Washington who didn't play Ohio State. Michigan would get the head-to-head tiebreaker, if they're 11-0 they beat Washington and Washington lost to whoever.

Or Michigan wins, and it's Penn STate that's 11-1.

Much less if Ohio State and Michigan aren't undefeated rolling into Thanksgiving.