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

[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?

 

[French Rage]

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

1988 USC-UCLA with Peete and Aikman?

Uhh, 2009?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

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.

 

[bronconick]

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

Uhh, 2009?

Three way tie for 2nd? The trick is to finish 1-2 while losing the game to your rival and not slipping behind someone else.

 

[French Rage]

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

Three way tie for 2nd? The trick is to finish 1-2 while losing the game to your rival and not slipping behind someone else.

Well I believe OSU eventually won the 2nd place tiebreaker but I can't recall fully. Granted it's moot since schedules would be different with divisions, but as is you could had divided the teams and OU and OSU finish at the top of their divisions, despite OU beating OSU during the last game (or second to last?) of the season.

I'm not saying it will happen a lot or should be a worry, I'm just pointing out it did (sort of) happen as recently as last year.

 

[blockski]

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

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.

As mentioned, take 2009:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/standings/2009/pac10/index.html

Oregon runs away with the conference at 8-1, three way tie for second at 6-3 - including a potential re-match of a rivalry game (Oregon and Oregon State) if there were a championship. The point is that the team losing the Rivalry game will often get thrown into a tie - thus, structuring the tiebreakers in the right way could avoid most of the championship game rematch scenarios.

 

[Patman]

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

As mentioned, take 2009:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/standings/2009/pac10/index.html

Oregon runs away with the conference at 8-1, three way tie for second at 6-3 - including a potential re-match of a rivalry game (Oregon and Oregon State) if there were a championship. The point is that the team losing the Rivalry game will often get thrown into a tie - thus, structuring the tiebreakers in the right way could avoid most of the championship game rematch scenarios.

I'll be a cold day in hell before the first or second tiebreaker is "Record versus other division"

 

[pirate]

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

For the last few seasons I have stirred the pot a bit with my prediction for Notre Dame football...so, since this will produce several responses including the words 'irrelevant' and 'sucks' but won't have as many pickle and fat jokes...here it goes:

(I'm not impartial, have no issues with being viewed as overly optimistic etc.)

I think they go 8-4, maybe 9-3. There isn't a game on there they can't win, only because USC will be having a transition year of some sort. As has been noted, Weis recruited great players and turned them into a terrible team. Kelly appears to be able to take mid-range players and get more out of them. Remains to be seen if the prima-donnas (as Kelly has described them) can be tough enough to play the way Kelly wants for 4Q vs blowing leads late.

When you read up on all the things Kelly has changed, such as having a training table so the players can eat real meals vs. getting out of Weis' practices after the dining halls had closed and eating at the McDonald's in the union, the increased strength and conditioning program etc. along with some of his comments about how the team was run like a waiting room for the NFL draft vs. guys trying to win today's game and worrying less about strategery and more about execution...I think it can only be an improvement.

They also will have one DC vs. 2-3 like they had last year.

Still, new coach, inexperienced QB, new system etc. 8-4 will be a good year.

Who else has a favorite they can offer some insight into?



edit: the irish also just got commitments from 4 recruits in the last 24 hours including 4 star RB Justice Hayes and DE Aaron Lynch. Maybe Kelly can recruit too.