Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Post Reply 
CCG Deregulation looks good
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
The4thOption Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,019
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 29
I Root For: GeorgiaSouthern
Location:
Post: #11
RE: CCG Deregulation looks good
(04-15-2014 08:50 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 08:27 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 08:17 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 07:13 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  We still need to balance the divisions.
If the Swofford-plan goes into effect, you won't be required to have divisions in the first place. You can just have 11 teams playing a conference schedule, and then the top 2 meet in a CCG.

How can you choose a true top two with no divisions when you don't play every team? Divisions solve that by playing everyone in your division.

That's the point of the ACC proposed legislation though. Last year the top 2 teams didn't meet in the ACC title game. We got an over-matched Duke vs. FSU. If you recall, the Big XII almost never matched the two best teams because the divisions were so out of balance.

Under these rules you can select the teams any way you choose.

You can take #1 and #2 in the standings. (If there is a two-way tie, the tiebreaker determines home field).
You take #1 and #2 based on a rating system or a combination of rating systems.
You can take #1 in the standings and then pit them against the highest rated other team accoring to ratings.
You can take #1 in the standings a pit them against the highest rated team they didn't play in the regular season.
You can give the top seed to the team rated the highest in ratings, hosting the highest in the standings or vice versa.

The key is you have to tell everyone what the system is before the season and the system has to be transparent enough that people have a reasonable idea what a result on Saturday will do to the race.

I suppose leaving it up to a conference is ok - but I hope we simply pit the East versus west champion. I like the idea of a Cinderella story, and I really hate the rating systems which may not be fair. Are we going to do our own ratings? Will it be by a computer or voting from people who know very little about us as individual programs or a conference? I'd rather just bang it out on the field as Wins/Losses. Duke may have been over matched, (ok, they were) - but so were many teams FSU faced. Duke won their games in their Division, they earned it. The question is: How will that help Duke progress in football power? I think without such notice and media attention - a program will have a hard time accessing life blood for the future of their program (RECRUITING). Does what Duke did earn them any advantages in Recruiting? I think the answer is yes, imhop - it just isn't fair or good for the conference to take that possibility away.
04-15-2014 08:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,792
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 118
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #12
RE: CCG Deregulation looks good
(04-15-2014 07:42 AM)asupatch Wrote:  Id be fine with 10. No need to water down, Lamar, SHSU, Liberty just to get to 12.

10 would probably work when playing 8 conference games. The leaves the possibility of the 2 teams being in the top that haven't played each other. i.e. The American had Cincy and UCF with the same record but neither played each other.
04-15-2014 09:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Klak Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 640
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 53
I Root For: Ga Southern
Location:
Post: #13
RE: CCG Deregulation looks good
(04-15-2014 08:59 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 08:50 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 08:27 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 08:17 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 07:13 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  We still need to balance the divisions.
If the Swofford-plan goes into effect, you won't be required to have divisions in the first place. You can just have 11 teams playing a conference schedule, and then the top 2 meet in a CCG.

How can you choose a true top two with no divisions when you don't play every team? Divisions solve that by playing everyone in your division.

That's the point of the ACC proposed legislation though. Last year the top 2 teams didn't meet in the ACC title game. We got an over-matched Duke vs. FSU. If you recall, the Big XII almost never matched the two best teams because the divisions were so out of balance.

Under these rules you can select the teams any way you choose.

You can take #1 and #2 in the standings. (If there is a two-way tie, the tiebreaker determines home field).
You take #1 and #2 based on a rating system or a combination of rating systems.
You can take #1 in the standings and then pit them against the highest rated other team accoring to ratings.
You can take #1 in the standings a pit them against the highest rated team they didn't play in the regular season.
You can give the top seed to the team rated the highest in ratings, hosting the highest in the standings or vice versa.

The key is you have to tell everyone what the system is before the season and the system has to be transparent enough that people have a reasonable idea what a result on Saturday will do to the race.

I suppose leaving it up to a conference is ok - but I hope we simply pit the East versus west champion. I like the idea of a Cinderella story, and I really hate the rating systems which may not be fair. Are we going to do our own ratings? Will it be by a computer or voting from people who know very little about us as individual programs or a conference? I'd rather just bang it out on the field as Wins/Losses. Duke may have been over matched, (ok, they were) - but so were many teams FSU faced. Duke won their games in their Division, they earned it. The question is: How will that help Duke progress in football power? I think without such notice and media attention - a program will have a hard time accessing life blood for the future of their program (RECRUITING). Does what Duke did earn them any advantages in Recruiting? I think the answer is yes, imhop - it just isn't fair or good for the conference to take that possibility away.

Clemson was better than Duke. They had a better conference record and a better overall record. Why should they be penalized for a divisional alignment that was set up 5+ years ago?
04-15-2014 09:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
statefanatic Offline
Howl at the Moon
*

Posts: 2,869
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 42
I Root For: stAte
Location: jonesboro
Post: #14
RE: CCG Deregulation looks good
Clemson already lost to FSU in there division.
(This post was last modified: 04-15-2014 09:31 AM by statefanatic.)
04-15-2014 09:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ODUalum78 Offline
Overseer of the Unwashed Masses
*

Posts: 5,996
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 71
I Root For: ODU
Location: Chesterfield, Va

Lion's Den Poster of the Year
Post: #15
RE: CCG Deregulation looks good
(04-15-2014 09:19 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 07:42 AM)asupatch Wrote:  Id be fine with 10. No need to water down, Lamar, SHSU, Liberty just to get to 12.

10 would probably work when playing 8 conference games. The leaves the possibility of the 2 teams being in the top that haven't played each other. i.e. The American had Cincy and UCF with the same record but neither played each other.

Since you will be allowed to determine the criteria for your championship game, you no longer need "divisions". You can simulate divisions by scheduling appropriately in the best interest of the programs.

By not having defined divisions, an uneven number of institutions then is not as problematic.
Therefore, the SBC can stay right where it is and still have the revenue producing ccg. If it wants to balance and/or get a travel partner for APP, it can take it's time; wait for JMU, or even wait a few years for EKU to develop, which IMO is the best long term solution for the SBC anyway.

There would be no critical time-is-of-the-essence urgency anymore.
(This post was last modified: 04-15-2014 09:47 AM by ODUalum78.)
04-15-2014 09:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,298
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 886
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #16
RE: CCG Deregulation looks good
(04-15-2014 08:27 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 08:17 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 07:13 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  We still need to balance the divisions.
If the Swofford-plan goes into effect, you won't be required to have divisions in the first place. You can just have 11 teams playing a conference schedule, and then the top 2 meet in a CCG.

How can you choose a true top two with no divisions when you don't play every team? Divisions solve that by playing everyone in your division.

Not really. The two best teams in the league could easily be in one divisions. You could end up with a 11-1 wset division champ team playing 8-4 east division champ for the championship while the 10-2 west division runner up sits at home. Did the best 2 teams really play in he CCG? Divisional deregulation would allow the Sunbelt to play any rotating schedule they prefer. They could have protected games to preserve certain rivalries while allowing more interaction between east and west schools. At the end of the year, the two highest rated teams would get a chance to face off for the championship. You could stick with divisions if you like. Unbalanced divisions would be ok as well. It would be entirely up to Sunbelt how they crown thier champion.
(This post was last modified: 04-15-2014 10:01 AM by Attackcoog.)
04-15-2014 09:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoApps70 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 20,650
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 290
I Root For: Appalachian St.
Location: Charlotte, N. C.
Post: #17
RE: CCG Deregulation looks good
A lot of validity in the possibility of having the top two teams actually being in the
same division, and not winding up having your top two teams meet if the SBC went
to division play in a CCG. Seems we would at least need to address that as an override
to strict division play.
04-15-2014 10:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoAppsGo92 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,117
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 27
I Root For: TheMountaineers
Location:
Post: #18
RE: CCG Deregulation looks good
(04-15-2014 10:16 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  A lot of validity in the possibility of having the top two teams actually being in the
same division, and not winding up having your top two teams meet if the SBC went
to division play in a CCG. Seems we would at least need to address that as an override
to strict division play.

I'm sure that could be worked out. Still need 12 to future proof the conference and ensure we have at least 10 without having to deal with football only agreements... worst case.
04-15-2014 10:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoApps70 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 20,650
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 290
I Root For: Appalachian St.
Location: Charlotte, N. C.
Post: #19
RE: CCG Deregulation looks good
Doesn't seem to have the need to go to 12 if deregulation is passing.
Still would think an almost assured winner out of the box would be the
only major push toward it.
Whether football or basketball.
04-15-2014 11:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The4thOption Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,019
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 29
I Root For: GeorgiaSouthern
Location:
Post: #20
RE: CCG Deregulation looks good
(04-15-2014 09:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 08:27 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 08:17 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 07:13 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  We still need to balance the divisions.
If the Swofford-plan goes into effect, you won't be required to have divisions in the first place. You can just have 11 teams playing a conference schedule, and then the top 2 meet in a CCG.

How can you choose a true top two with no divisions when you don't play every team? Divisions solve that by playing everyone in your division.

Not really. The two best teams in the league could easily be in one divisions. You could end up with a 11-1 wset division champ team playing 8-4 east division champ for the championship while the 10-2 west division runner up sits at home. Did the best 2 teams really play in he CCG? Divisional deregulation would allow the Sunbelt to play any rotating schedule they prefer. They could have protected games to preserve certain rivalries while allowing more interaction between east and west schools. At the end of the year, the two highest rated teams would get a chance to face off for the championship. You could stick with divisions if you like. Unbalanced divisions would be ok as well. It would be entirely up to Sunbelt how they crown thier champion.

You could also have a better team with a worse conference record due to being on a tougher side of the conference. There is no perfect system.
04-15-2014 11:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.