College Football 2010: Dude, Where's my Conference?

[The Sicatoka]

Re: College Football 2010: Dude, Where's my Conference?

Clearly Texas is afraid of Minnesota.

Indubitably.

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Football 2010: Dude, Where's my Conference?

That would make a lot of sense right there. You can zip the natural rivals up in separate divisions, and then just make the rivalry game be a set cross-division game. Then, that way everybody is guaranteed to be in LA at least once every 2 years.

One drawback, other than looking odd, would be that apparently the rivalry games would get moved to the middle of the schedule, instead of being the last, or nearly last game of the season. That would be disappointing.

[blockski]

Re: College Football 2010: Dude, Where's my Conference?

One drawback, other than looking odd, would be that apparently the rivalry games would get moved to the middle of the schedule, instead of being the last, or nearly last game of the season. That would be disappointing.

I haven't had a chance to look at the proposals at all in depth, but would that need to be the case? Especially if they keep the 9 game schedule?

Games 1-5 within your division
Games 6-8 outside of your division
Game 9, last week of the regular season, against your designated, out of division rival.

I have no idea if the math works on that or not, but that would seem to be the obvious solution. You end up playing every school but 2 each year.

I think the Big Ten is considering this - not the zipper alignment, but there was talk of 9 conference games and a protected rival outside of your division...

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Football 2010: Dude, Where's my Conference?

I haven't had a chance to look at the proposals at all in depth, but would that need to be the case? Especially if they keep the 9 game schedule?

Games 1-5 within your division
Games 6-8 outside of your division
Game 9, last week of the regular season, against your designated, out of division rival.

I have no idea if the math works on that or not, but that would seem to be the obvious solution. You end up playing every school but 2 each year.

I think the Big Ten is considering this - not the zipper alignment, but there was talk of 9 conference games and a protected rival outside of your division...

The problem is, you don't want to take the chance of playing your rival in the final week of the regular season, and then possibly face them again in the title game. So they'd move the rivalry games to the middle of the season to avoid that possibility. At least that's the rationale I read somewhere.

[blockski]

Re: College Football 2010: Dude, Where's my Conference?

The problem is, you don't want to take the chance of playing your rival in the final week of the regular season, and then possibly face them again in the title game. So they'd move the rivalry games to the middle of the season to avoid that possibility. At least that's the rationale I read somewhere.

Ah, I hadn't considered that.

I guess that all depends on how they determine conference championship participants - Best conference record in the division? Best division record within the division? Best overall record within the division?

I suppose you could also make the rivalry games quasi-divisional games, too - have them count in the standings. Therefore, if you lose, you're out of the championship game, period. That would up the stakes a little...

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Football 2010: Dude, Where's my Conference?

Ah, I hadn't considered that.

I guess that all depends on how they determine conference championship participants - Best conference record in the division? Best division record within the division? Best overall record within the division?

I suppose you could also make the rivalry games quasi-divisional games, too - have them count in the standings. Therefore, if you lose, you're out of the championship game, period. That would up the stakes a little...

At least going by existing multi-division conferences, I'd assume all conference games count in determining division winners. Otherwise cross-division games have a good deal less meaning, and to no good purpose.

[blockski]

Re: College Football 2010: Dude, Where's my Conference?

At least going by existing multi-division conferences, I'd assume all conference games count in determining division winners. Otherwise cross-division games have a good deal less meaning, and to no good purpose.

Yeah, I guess I'm just trying to figure out how often a rematch would happen. I have a feeling that if you structured the tiebreakers right, you could likely avoid them almost altogether.

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Football 2010: Dude, Where's my Conference?

Yeah, I guess I'm just trying to figure out how often a rematch would happen. I have a feeling that if you structured the tiebreakers right, you could likely avoid them almost altogether.

Unless I'm missing something, mathematically you have a one-in-six chance of meeting your rival school again in the championship game, with six teams in each division. Of course the quality of the two rival teams plays into it, but I'm not sure how you avoid the possibility through scheduling or other methods.

[blockski]

Re: College Football 2010: Dude, Where's my Conference?

Unless I'm missing something, mathematically you have a one-in-six chance of meeting your rival school again in the championship game, with six teams in each division. Of course the quality of the two rival teams plays into it, but I'm not sure how you avoid the possibility through scheduling or other methods.

Well, I was going to say real odds, not just 1/6. It's less than that, because you're only talking about the two best teams in each division.

So, if you win your division, to get a rematch you'd have to have your rival with their division while still losing their rivalry game.

Basically, when's the last time that two rivals finished the season 1-2?

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: College Football 2010: Dude, Where's my Conference?

Well, I was going to say real odds, not just 1/6. It's less than that, because you're only talking about the two best teams in each division.

So, if you win your division, to get a rematch you'd have to have your rival with their division while still losing their rivalry game.

Basically, when's the last time that two rivals finished the season 1-2?

In Big Ten football? Almost every season, really.

[bronconick]

Re: College Football 2010: Dude, Where's my Conference?

Well, I was going to say real odds, not just 1/6. It's less than that, because you're only talking about the two best teams in each division.

So, if you win your division, to get a rematch you'd have to have your rival with their division while still losing their rivalry game.

Basically, when's the last time that two rivals finished the season 1-2?

It's an overrated worry. The ACC setup is pretty much because FSU-Miami wanted to have their yearly rivalry game but still meet in the conference title game. FSU's been to one, Miami none.

[blockski]

Re: College Football 2010: Dude, Where's my Conference?

In Big Ten football? Almost every season, really.

No, Pac-10. When's the last time one of the rival pairs finished the season 1-2?

[bronconick]

Re: College Football 2010: Dude, Where's my Conference?

No, Pac-10. When's the last time one of the rival pairs finished the season 1-2?

1988 USC-UCLA with Peete and Aikman?

[bigmrg74]

Re: College Football 2010: Dude, Where's my Conference?

I haven't had a chance to look at the proposals at all in depth, but would that need to be the case? Especially if they keep the 9 game schedule?

Games 1-5 within your division
Games 6-8 outside of your division
Game 9, last week of the regular season, against your designated, out of division rival.

I have no idea if the math works on that or not, but that would seem to be the obvious solution. You end up playing every school but 2 each year.

I think the Big Ten is considering this - not the zipper alignment, but there was talk of 9 conference games and a protected rival outside of your division...

That would be the easy way to do it right there.

The problem is, you don't want to take the chance of playing your rival in the final week of the regular season, and then possibly face them again in the title game. So they'd move the rivalry games to the middle of the season to avoid that possibility. At least that's the rationale I read somewhere.

Yeah, that would be a bit problematic, but I'm sure the talking heads can still sell that 12-PAC Title Game.

Ah, I hadn't considered that.

I guess that all depends on how they determine conference championship participants - Best conference record in the division? Best division record within the division? Best overall record within the division?

Why not make the Rivalry games a Double??? Your designated cross division rival would count as 2 wins within the conference standings at the end of the year. Somebody would need to crunch the numbers on this, but it would likely make it pretty hard for rivals to clash again in a title game if the team thats right behind the losing side in the divisional standings is able to jump them because they beat their rival by 3 touchdowns while you got edged out by a last second field goal. That would really make for a killer deal for your TV Broadcast, and hell, instantly throws some spice in for Utah-Colorado to develop.

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Football 2010: Dude, Where's my Conference?

Well, I was going to say real odds, not just 1/6. It's less than that, because you're only talking about the two best teams in each division.

So, if you win your division, to get a rematch you'd have to have your rival with their division while still losing their rivalry game.

Basically, when's the last time that two rivals finished the season 1-2?

That's true. With one rival having to have one loss, that drops the odds a bit below 1/6. But I think that probably some folks will want to avoid that possibility altogether.

On the scheduling idea, why wouldn't you want the in-division games later in the season (like 4-8) and out-of-division games near the beginning (1-3), so if two teams were battling for the division title, there's a real possibility of a late season clash for the division title? By having out-of-divisions later, you assure that you won't have late season clashes for the division title.

I still think the more likely scenario is some sort of geographic split. Unlike someone like the ACC, where a geographic split probably doesn't tell you a whole lot because so many teams are bunched close together on the map, a north-south or other geographic split would have a good deal of geographic logic to it.

Or maybe just leave all 12 together and take the top two teams, with the top team getting home field advantage for the title game?