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

[Bob Gray]

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

Well, with my proposal, you'd mix up the division and non-division games amongst the first 8 conference games of the season. That wasn't really clear the way I wrote it, but that's what I was going for.

As for the odds, the chances of both teams winning their division isn't an even 1/6, either.

In order to get a rematch, you'd have to meet a lot of requirements - first, you'd have to get two rivals to finish atop each of their divisions, and one of them would have to do so despite losing in their rivalry game. That alone, I would think, would happen far less often than people think.

That said, I still think there would be a way to structure the tiebreakers to ensure that a rematch doesn't happen.

I'm agreeing on your point on it being less than a 1/6 chance.

I think you'd want to weight the late season toward having within division matchups (except maybe your rivalry game at the end), so you'd have a chance of having a key showdown for the division crown late in the season.

On the tiebrakers, I don't understand. Can you explain your ideas on that?

I've always thought it's interesting that the SEC seems to at times have key division games relatively early in their season. I don't know enough about the thought process there as to why they do it that way? At a quick glance, they seem to mix division on non-division SEC games up a bit.

[blockski]

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

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?

Well, with my proposal, you'd mix up the division and non-division games amongst the first 8 conference games of the season. That wasn't really clear the way I wrote it, but that's what I was going for.

As for the odds, the chances of both teams winning their division isn't an even 1/6, either.

In order to get a rematch, you'd have to meet a lot of requirements - first, you'd have to get two rivals to finish atop each of their divisions, and one of them would have to do so despite losing in their rivalry game. That alone, I would think, would happen far less often than people think.

That said, I still think there would be a way to structure the tiebreakers to ensure that a rematch doesn't happen.

Is that an NCAA rule? I've heard the idea tossed out in the past, so I figured maybe there was a way to make it work.

Yes, you are required to have divisions in order to have a championship game.

[Bob Gray]

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

Can't. In order to have a title game, you must be split into divisions.

Is that an NCAA rule? I've heard the idea tossed out in the past, so I figured maybe there was a way to make it work.

[unofan]

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

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?

Can't. In order to have a title game, you must be split into divisions.

[French Rage]

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

1988 USC-UCLA with Peete and Aikman?

Uhh, 2009?