PAC-12 scraps division winners meeting in football championship game; teams with best win percentage will now advance

WindyCityGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,684
Reaction score
2,678
Points
113
I wonder how long it will take for the Big Ten to act similarly. That would do some damage to our hopes of making the conference championship game, I think.

 

I don't like it. Win your division. Can't win your division then you probably already lost to the guy who is in there... or were too inconstant to advance.
 


Kind of defeats the purpose of having divisions in the first place but won't be surprised to see the Big Ten quickly follow suit.
Disagree with that.

There are two purposes to divisions:
1) Make sure there are no more than 2 unbeaten teams at the end of the season since you can’t play everyone
2) make sure in trying to achieve 1 rivals can still play each other


The pac 12 solution is a better solution than going to one random ass schedule
 

I don't like it. Win your division. Can't win your division then you probably already lost to the guy who is in there... or were too inconstant to advance.
If you get second in your division with one loss but the winner of the other division has two losses…they don’t deserve to go either. If the winner of the other division has one loss, you won’t go (if they do the tiebreakers right)



This essentially means the divisions are no longer “divisions” they’re scheduling groups. I like this solution more than many of the scrap divisions or realign divisions I’ve seen.
 


I do not have a problem with what the Pac12 is doing.
I do not have a problem with the way the BIG is doing it now.
Over that decade tOSU has mostly won the BIG so changing the format will not change that.
 

I do not have a problem with what the Pac12 is doing.
I do not have a problem with the way the BIG is doing it now.
Over that decade tOSU has mostly won the BIG so changing the format will not change that.
I think it makes a lot of sense for a 1 loss Penn state or Michigan state to go to a championship game over a 2 loss Iowa/wisconsin/northwestern it’s fine.

Would love to see everything stay the same scheduling wise.
Top two in the conference goes. If 2 teams are tied at second place the first tiebreak is head to head. Second tiebreak is head to head against the number 1 team.

So basically, the opposite division winner wins the tiebreaker unless they have lost to the second place team from the other division.
 

I wonder how long it will take for the Big Ten to act similarly. That would do some damage to our hopes of making the conference championship game, I think.
The answer appears to be, not long. Though the Mountain West beat the Big 10 to be next in line.

 

The answer appears to be, not long. Though the Mountain West beat the Big 10 to be next in line.

So now of the 10 leagues
3 are divisionless

None of the 4 14-team leagues currently divisionless
ACC will likely be the first
 



ACC is guaranteed. They were one of the hardest pushing for it, and got to experiment with it during the covid season.
 

Would think the SEC will get rid of them -- every team in the West wants to get out of having to play Alabama every year.

Big XII was going to move into divisions, and now guessing they just won't do that anymore.
 

Would think the SEC will get rid of them -- every team in the West wants to get out of having to play Alabama every year.

Big XII was going to move into divisions, and now guessing they just won't do that anymore.
I think SEC will get rid of them when they go to 16, but not before

The big XII was the push for it. Not the ACC

Though I think the ACC will do it. Their divisions suck anyways. Not because they’re imbalanced but because they don’t gain that conference anything.
 

I think SEC will get rid of them when they go to 16, but not before

The big XII was the push for it. Not the ACC

Though I think the ACC will do it. Their divisions suck anyways. Not because they’re imbalanced but because they don’t gain that conference anything.
The ACC has wanted to get rid of divisions as a requirement to have a CCG, for a long time.

Google is failing me in this because now all search results are dominated by the announcements this month. But I'm pretty sure (not certain) that my first sentence above is correct.
 



No one cares.
All that matters is what the B1G and SEC do.
 

The ACC has wanted to get rid of divisions as a requirement to have a CCG, for a long time.

Google is failing me in this because now all search results are dominated by the announcements this month. But I'm pretty sure (not certain) that my first sentence above is correct.
And the big 12 is the conference that lobbied for a change
 

No one cares.
All that matters is what the B1G and SEC do.
Disagree

What makes college football great is a lot of regions are important.
The sport is better with many healthy conferences
 

There is no evidence the SEC is scrapping divisions. And it seems the likeliest scenario is that the SEC will split into 3 or 4 divisions once TX and OK join, and have conference semifinals or their own playoff.

Divisions are pretty clearly the reason for most of the increase in interest in the game since the early 90’s. You want more teams to have something to play for, not less.

The SEC figured this out first, and they used divisions to catch-up to the BigTen for 20 years until the Big Ten and the others finally adapted.

Scrapping divisions is the loser’s model. The conferences that aren’t the SEC and Big Ten are doing all sorts of lame crap because they have to (so few people care about their games).

The Big Ten may follow the losers on this trend. But they will learn the hard way that it was a stupid decision, sort of like that dumbass Legends and Leaders model — copying the ACC instead of the SEC.
 

Kind of defeats the purpose of having divisions in the first place but won't be surprised to see the Big Ten quickly follow suit.
Every team in the East is going to want this and every team in the West isn't. You're right about the B1G following suit. The three most best football brands in the conference are going to make this priority 1A.

I wonder if they just get rid of divisions entirely as a result.
 

If you get second in your division with one loss but the winner of the other division has two losses…they don’t deserve to go either. If the winner of the other division has one loss, you won’t go (if they do the tiebreakers right)



This essentially means the divisions are no longer “divisions” they’re scheduling groups. I like this solution more than many of the scrap divisions or realign divisions I’ve seen.
why don't they deserve to go?

you're going to have the same unbalanced schedules each year. the only way to eliminate it all is to play everyone and that isn't going to happen. The only way to make it work is to expand to 20, 2 ten team divisions and you play everyone for 9 division games, division champs play each other. But then again you're ending up in the exact same spot you will every single year. scrapping all divisions just means you're going to have people bitching in a different way about who's more "deserving" and then us ending up with some stupid CFP type shit (or using cumulative W/L records, which again is unfair in an unbalanced schedule) for each individual conference to select their reps when the win% is a tie and they didn't play each other.

at the end of the day, they don't care about football fans' definition of "deserving", they care about trying to protect their top team so they don't get a "bad loss" in the last week and their entire conference misses the CFP (or even better yet, a slightly lower perceived team wins and they slip 2 teams in). they want the money. the slight deviation in viewership annually for the CC game is pennies comparatively. so the idea that this is for competition or getting the most deserving champion really isn't it when they're making these moves
 

Every team in the East is going to want this and every team in the West isn't. You're right about the B1G following suit. The three most best football brands in the conference are going to make this priority 1A.

I wonder if they just get rid of divisions entirely as a result.
The title and playoff berths will be tougher for members of the current Big Ten West.
 

There is no evidence the SEC is scrapping divisions. And it seems the likeliest scenario is that the SEC will split into 3 or 4 divisions once TX and OK join, and have conference semifinals or their own playoff.

Divisions are pretty clearly the reason for most of the increase in interest in the game since the early 90’s. You want more teams to have something to play for, not less.

The SEC figured this out first, and they used divisions to catch-up to the BigTen for 20 years until the Big Ten and the others finally adapted.

Scrapping divisions is the loser’s model. The conferences that aren’t the SEC and Big Ten are doing all sorts of lame crap because they have to (so few people care about their games).

The Big Ten may follow the losers on this trend. But they will learn the hard way that it was a stupid decision, sort of like that dumbass Legends and Leaders model — copying the ACC instead of the SEC.
Divisions did not create the explosion in TV for college football. That was purely demand, and TV networks realizing that a huge interest in it existed.


The SEC invented the divisional format as we know it, in I believe 1991, well before TV was anywhere near as huge as it was today. They figured: if not everyone can play everyone else (round robin), then the best thing to do was split in half, have each team play everyone in their half, and have the two "winners" of the halves meet in an extra game (Conf Championship game) which they got the NCAA to give special exemption to the max number of games in the regular season.

They did this purely out of practicality.


Only after CFB on TV exploded, did conferences realize that the Conf Championship game could be worth a nice little chunk of extra $$$, and they all did that. And since that format the SEC invented years ago was there, they just aligned themselves to that format.
 

Divisions did not create the explosion in TV for college football. That was purely demand, and TV networks realizing that a huge interest in it existed.


The SEC invented the divisional format as we know it, in I believe 1991, well before TV was anywhere near as huge as it was today. They figured: if not everyone can play everyone else (round robin), then the best thing to do was split in half, have each team play everyone in their half, and have the two "winners" of the halves meet in an extra game (Conf Championship game) which they got the NCAA to give special exemption to the max number of games in the regular season.

They did this purely out of practicality.


Only after CFB on TV exploded, did conferences realize that the Conf Championship game could be worth a nice little chunk of extra $$$, and they all did that. And since that format the SEC invented years ago was there, they just aligned themselves to that format.
Divisional races drive interest in the sport for games that would otherwise matter less and far fewer people would watch.

College football on television would have grown without divisional races and CCGs, but not nearly as much as it has. It’s why every conference eventually followed the SEC into the divisional/ CCG model. It was television gold for the whole season. Before that the sport was only about rivalries and bowl games.

When the Big Ten CCG becomes a rematch, 7 days later, of Ohio State/ Michigan every other year, people will eventually be less interested not only in that game, but the whole process of determine who plays in it.
 

Divisional races drive interest in the sport for games that would otherwise matter less and far fewer people would watch.
This I agree with. Some guy brought this point up in previous threads. Eg, last year in the last week of the regular season, Minn vs Wisc mattered. It was on FOX.

If it was just #1 vs #2, then it was all but guaranteed that it would be a Ohio St vs Mich rematch, and probably none of the other games would matter.

So that is a nice thing.

College football on television would have grown without divisional races and CCGs, but not nearly as much as it has. It’s why every conference eventually followed the SEC into the divisional/ CCG model. It was television gold for the whole season. Before that the sport was only about rivalries and bowl games.
They wanted the CCG (for the TV $$$), and NCAA rules required they split into divisions with the two division winners meeting in the CCG, in order for that extra game to be exempted from maximum limits on number of games in the regular season.

The SEC came up with the format in 1991, out of practicality, and the rules were simply never updated for a long time.

If there were no rules about that, confs would largely not have split into divisions when they expanded up to 12. The Big Ten never had divisions at 11 when Penn St was added. No reason to think adding one more to 12 they would ... except they were required to by rule in order to have the CCG.

Rules only got updated when the Big XII lost Colorado, Texas A&M, Nebraska, and Missouri (and added TCU and West Virginia to get back to 10), with an exemption only allowed for conferences who play a full round-robin schedule. In other words, it was a specific carve-out for the Big XII, which had 10 teams and played a full round-robin with 9 conf games.

When the Big Ten CCG becomes a rematch, 7 days later, of Ohio State/ Michigan every other year, people will eventually be less interested not only in that game, but the whole process of determine who plays in it.
Which to me is why it is beyond obvious that they need to move that game to earlier in the season.
 

This I agree with. Some guy brought this point up in previous threads. Eg, last year in the last week of the regular season, Minn vs Wisc mattered. It was on FOX.

If it was just #1 vs #2, then it was all but guaranteed that it would be a Ohio St vs Mich rematch, and probably none of the other games would matter.

So that is a nice thing.
It's also possible that the battle for the #2 seed could make other games matter. For instance, last year, if the favored Ohio St had beat Michigan, then both the Wisc-Minn and Penn St-Mich St game would have had implications on who got the bid.

Big 10 could adjust the game times in such situations, to make more games matter.
 
Last edited:

It's also possible that the battle for the #2 seed could make other games matter. For instance, last year, if the favored Ohio St had beat Michigan, then both the Wisc-Minn and Penn St-Mich St game would have had implications on who got the bid.

Big 10 could adjust the game times in such situations, to make more games matter.
I disagree that there was any way #2 Michigan would've dropped enough from losing to #5 Ohio St that they would have been overtaken by #12 Mich St.

It's possible, but I don't think so.


But generally you are right, in other scenarios it might matter more.
 

I disagree that there was any way #2 Michigan would've dropped enough from losing to #5 Ohio St that they would have been overtaken by #12 Mich St.

It's possible, but I don't think so.


But generally you are right, in other scenarios it might matter more.
It depends on what the tie breakers would have been. Michigan St beat Michigan, so depending on whether it would be a 3 way tie (with Iowa) or 4 way tie (with also Wisconsin), realistically, sure the Spartans could have got the bid. Credit to Some Guy for pointing that out previously.

Another interesting case would be 2018, assuming that the same schedule was played, with Ohio St, Michigan & Northwestern all being 8-1. Ohio State beat Michigan and Michigan beat Northwestern.

As it was Ohio State beat Northwestern in the Big 10 Title game. The Wildcats had the West Division clinched with 2 weeks remaining, so none of the games played by any of the teams mattered as far as the Conference Title.

If Michigan had beat Ohio St, then the Wildcats still would have advanced as the #2 seed.

Instead it would have come down to how the tiebreaker would be established. Not necessarily fair, but more chaotic and providing more games that mattered.
 

It's also possible that the battle for the #2 seed could make other games matter. For instance, last year, if the favored Ohio St had beat Michigan, then both the Wisc-Minn and Penn St-Mich St game would have had implications on who got the bid.

Big 10 could adjust the game times in such situations, to make more games matter.
It’s probably a zero sum game.
Shifting will make some games matter more and other games matter less
 

It’s probably a zero sum game.
Shifting will make some games matter more and other games matter less
Yes, sometimes good...others bad. On the whole I would prefer Divisions were kept in some form. I would also be ok with realigning, but that train has left the station apparently.

In the Division-less format, the only situation that really bugs me is if the #1 Team finishes more than 2 games clear of the #2 team as well as beat whomever they are playing already. That just seems silly, all they are doing is putting their BCS Playoff bid (or perhaps bye) jeopardy.

I'd watch though. Nothing else on, and I would probably be in a Vegas sportsbook already.
 

Yes, sometimes good...others bad. On the whole I would prefer Divisions were kept in some form. I would also be ok with realigning, but that train has left the station apparently.

In the Division-less format, the only situation that really bugs me is if the #1 Team finishes more than 2 games clear of the #2 team as well as beat whomever they are playing already. That just seems silly, all they are doing is putting their BCS Playoff bid (or perhaps bye) jeopardy.

I'd watch though. Nothing else on, and I would probably be in a Vegas sportsbook already.
Yeah. I am not a fan of championship games unless there are divisions

The big 12 championship game is one of the dumbest things in sports

IMO cost themselves a playoff bid last year by making OK state beat Baylor twice


Baylor sitting at number 5 in the country…loses to a team they already beat (who is ranked 9th) in a game their QB gets banged up….
Then beats #5 Notre dame

Somehow finishes 7th. Whoops



Kind of happy they played it because it got Cincinnati in. And I think that’s good for the sport
 




Top Bottom