IDAHO/ NMSU kicked out

[jello1717]

Sorry for the tangent, but here's an article on the CCG change.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/...old-title-game

I now like it even less.

Quote:

The Division I council adopted a proposal allowing FBS conferences with less than 12 members to hold conference title games between the top two teams in its standings, so long as the conference plays a full round-robin regular-season schedule.

This is absolutely horrible. So instead of have two division champs playing each other (who may not have had the chance to play during the season), they're making it so a 10 team conference, that plays a full round robin, can have its top 2 teams play again.

WTF?!?!?!?!?

Here are the possibilities of that arrangement.
1. Team 1 has a better record than Team 2 after playing ALL of the same teams, but Team 1 has to play Team 2 again, despite already beating more teams than Team 2.

2. Teams 1 and 2 are tied for 1st and Team 2, which already lost the head to head matchup, gets a free chance to try to beat Team 1 again, even though Team 1 already proved themselves (and also making their win over them the 1st time COMPLETELY meaningless).

Am I missing something? Is there a scenario where it'd be good for the top two teams in a 10 team round robin to have to play again where it doesn't COMPLETELY screw the team that already "won the conference?" This is very different from a 2 division setup where the 2 division champs play very different schedules (and more times than not, didn't even play each other).

I can't see why the Big XII would even consider this except for monetary reasons.

[BROman]

Quote: Originally Posted by jello1717

Sorry for the tangent, but here's an article on the CCG change. http://espn.go.com/college-football/...old-title-game I now like it even less. This is absolutely horrible. So instead of have two division champs playing each other (who may not have had the chance to play during the season), they're making it so a 10 team conference, that plays a full round robin, can have its top 2 teams play again. WTF?!?!?!?!? Here are the possibilities of that arrangement. 1. Team 1 has a better record than Team 2 after playing ALL of the same teams, but Team 1 has to play Team 2 again, despite already beating more teams than Team 2. 2. Teams 1 and 2 are tied for 1st and Team 2, which already lost the head to head matchup, gets a free chance to try to beat Team 1 again, even though Team 1 already proved themselves (and also making their win over them the 1st time COMPLETELY meaningless). Am I missing something? Is there a scenario where it'd be good for the top two teams in a 10 team round robin to have to play again where it doesn't COMPLETELY screw the team that already "won the conference?" This is very different from a 2 division setup where the 2 division champs play very different schedules (and more times than not, didn't even play each other). I can't see why the Big XII would even consider this except for monetary reasons.

It was basically a big middle finger to both the Big XII (who wanted to hold a CCG w/ less than 12 teams but the round-robin requirement renders it useless) and the ACC (who wanted to kill the divisions but cannot play a round robin schedule w/ 14 teams).

[jsr862]

Quote: Originally Posted by BROman

It was basically a big middle finger to both the Big XII (who wanted to hold a CCG w/ less than 12 teams but the round-robin requirement renders it useless) and the ACC (who wanted to kill the divisions but cannot play a round robin schedule w/ 14 teams).

Yeah this may keep Big 12 at 10 teams for next few years instead of expansion. And with this could this mean ACC may now off the divisions?

[fballturkey]

Quote: Originally Posted by jello1717

Sorry for the tangent, but here's an article on the CCG change. http://espn.go.com/college-football/...old-title-game I now like it even less. This is absolutely horrible. So instead of have two division champs playing each other (who may not have had the chance to play during the season), they're making it so a 10 team conference, that plays a full round robin, can have its top 2 teams play again. WTF?!?!?!?!? Here are the possibilities of that arrangement. 1. Team 1 has a better record than Team 2 after playing ALL of the same teams, but Team 1 has to play Team 2 again, despite already beating more teams than Team 2. 2. Teams 1 and 2 are tied for 1st and Team 2, which already lost the head to head matchup, gets a free chance to try to beat Team 1 again, even though Team 1 already proved themselves (and also making their win over them the 1st time COMPLETELY meaningless). Am I missing something? Is there a scenario where it'd be good for the top two teams in a 10 team round robin to have to play again where it doesn't COMPLETELY screw the team that already "won the conference?" This is very different from a 2 division setup where the 2 division champs play very different schedules (and more times than not, didn't even play each other). I can't see why the Big XII would even consider this except for monetary reasons.

There are two reasons they want to do this. 1) Money. Conference championship games make it. 2) To give their conference champion one more big win to help with the playoff committee.

[return.specialist]

Quote: Originally Posted by fballturkey

1) Money.

Quote: Originally Posted by jello1717

monetary reasons

It is unfortunate, this ruling. However, maybe it will force Baylor into selecting a more effortful non-conference schedule. Anyhow, I believe with this new system in place this would have happened this year in the BIGXII:

Quote: Originally Posted by jello1717

2. Teams 1 and 2 are tied for 1st and Team 2, which already lost the head to head matchup, gets a free chance to try to beat Team 1 again, even though Team 1 already proved themselves (and also making their win over them the 1st time COMPLETELY meaningless).

Wouldn't it have been Oklahoma vs Oklahoma State in the championship game with this format, AFTER OU had already beat OSU with ease?

[SilverBullet19]

Quote: Originally Posted by return.specialist

Wouldn't it have been Oklahoma vs Oklahoma State in the championship game with this format, AFTER OU had already beat OSU with ease?

I think thats his point. It says the conference has to play round robin, IE play everyone. Therefore, any championship game will be a rematch, which is boring. It essentially makes the first game between the two pointless.

In an extreme chance, you could wind up with two teams playing each other two weeks in a row.

[jello1717]

Quote: Originally Posted by fballturkey

2) To give their conference champion one more big win to help with the playoff committee.

But this will only help sometimes. Let's look at this year as an example.

Oklahoma finished 1st and Okie St finished 2nd. OU CRUSHED OSU 58-23 (and they beat TCU who finished tied w/ OSU) which should make them the obvious champ.

Here are the possibilities:
NO CCG:
OU might get into the playoff w/o an extra CCG win (we know that they did).

WITH CCG:
If OU wins, they might get into the playoff w/ the extra win.
If OSU wins, OU is out, and OSU is also out and the Big XII has 0 chance of getting a playoff team.

W/ the CCG, you might improve your champ's chances of getting into the playoff (which they might do anyway w/o having to play the CCG). However, w/ the rare exception like 2014 where your top 2 teams are both in the top 6, the chances are REALLY likely that if your #1 team loses to a team the REALLY shouldn't have to play again, then the Big XII won't get any teams in.

As further example, let's look @ last year again. There were 4 power 5 CCGs. Here were the CCGs:
B1G: MSU v. Iowa - Winner is in (similar to the Big XII 2014 scenario w/ Baylor/TCU.

ACC: Clemson is in w/ win, but UNC most likely wouldn't be in w/ win.
Pac12: Stanford might've gotten in w/ a win, but USC had no chance.
SEC: Alabama is in w/ win, Florida needs help if they win.

So, of the 4 CCGs, only 1 of them had a winner take all scenario. In the other 3, if #2 won, they'd need some help to get in (and USC had 0 chance at all). If you include the Big XII, then there were 4 of the 5 power 5s where the #2 team winning likely costs the conference it's playoff shot. To me, this makes it a no brainer for the Big XII to avoid a CCG under these conditions like the plague.

[packawana]

Didn't Idaho just play in a bowl game?