Sorry. Should say.... Considers Scrapping Division Winners In favor Of Two Best Records For CCG.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ms-to-meet

I can just see team A beating team B on the last weekend of the regular season to force a tie, then play each other again the next week for the title.

That article isn't saying the MWC wants to scrap a CCG. It's saying it'll go along with the deregulation in putting their best two teams in the conference championship game, not the two division winners. Sun Belt will likely do the same thing in 2016 along with the Big XII, ACC, etc.

I uderstand the logic of going with the two best teams, but let's face it, at our level, would that really make a difference to anyone? I've never been a proponent of a championship game for the Belt though if we did I'd rather see it come down to two division winners.

That way Georgia Southern couldn't keep avoiding playing the Cajuns.

(05-03-2015 07:25 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  I uderstand the logic of going with the two best teams, but let's face it, at our level, would that really make a difference to anyone? I've never been a proponent of a championship game for the Belt though if we did I'd rather see it come down to two division winners.

That way Georgia Southern couldn't keep avoiding playing the Cajuns.

Would you have the same opinion if ULL finished second in the west at 7-1 behind a 8-0 team and had to sit and watch a 5-3 eastern division leader play for the championship? It happened last year in the MWC.

(05-03-2015 08:21 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 07:25 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  I uderstand the logic of going with the two best teams, but let's face it, at our level, would that really make a difference to anyone? I've never been a proponent of a championship game for the Belt though if we did I'd rather see it come down to two division winners.

That way Georgia Southern couldn't keep avoiding playing the Cajuns.

Would you have the same opinion if ULL finished second in the west at 7-1 behind a 8-0 team and had to sit and watch a 5-3 eastern division leader play for the championship? It happened last year in the MWC.

If those are the rules, then yeah, I'd be fine with it. Win your friggin' division if you want to play in the championship game if that's the rule and don't whine if you don't.

Personally, I prefer hard and fast rules pertaining to ONE champion. Co-champs never sits right with me. In the case of divisions, each team in the division plays everyone else. So if there are two teams at 7-1, one team lost to the other (aka, NOT the divisional champ).

Thankfully, my Bobcats haven't had to worry about the co-champs thing in the Sun Belt (and yes, that was sarcasm).

(05-03-2015 09:37 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  Personally, I prefer hard and fast rules pertaining to ONE champion. Co-champs never sits right with me. In the case of divisions, each team in the division plays everyone else. So if there are two teams at 7-1, one team lost to the other (aka, NOT the divisional champ).

Thankfully, my Bobcats haven't had to worry about the co-champs thing in the Sun Belt (and yes, that was sarcasm).

Agree fully on the issue of a hard and fast rule pertaining to ONE champion. In case of a tie, have a long list of things a team needs to have accomplished, and if all else fails, flip a friggin' coin.....but name a champion.

I also fully agree that your beloved Bobcats haven't had to worry about that co-champ thingy.

One champ is only significant if you are contending for the Access slot. Until 1991, every major conference crowned co-champs in a tie and since then only leagues with a title game.

It will be interesting to see how the MWC implements the system. If you just take the two highest rated per whatever power ratings it is entirely possible a team could go 8-0 in league play and miss the title game for teams with league losses if the team with best record in league bombs non-conference play.

(05-03-2015 10:20 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  One champ is only significant if you are contending for the Access slot. Until 1991, every major conference crowned co-champs in a tie and since then only leagues with a title game.

One champ is significant (to me, keep in mind, I stated "personally") because then it settles things once and for all.

(05-03-2015 07:25 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  I uderstand the logic of going with the two best teams, but let's face it, at our level, would that really make a difference to anyone? I've never been a proponent of a championship game for the Belt though if we did I'd rather see it come down to two division winners.

That way Georgia Southern couldn't keep avoiding playing the Cajuns.

The Cajuns would just have to worry about beating App and pray that Georgia State doesn't finally creep up on you...

(05-04-2015 12:44 AM)bamaEagle Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 07:25 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  I uderstand the logic of going with the two best teams, but let's face it, at our level, would that really make a difference to anyone? I've never been a proponent of a championship game for the Belt though if we did I'd rather see it come down to two division winners.

That way Georgia Southern couldn't keep avoiding playing the Cajuns.

The Cajuns would just have to worry about beating App and pray that Georgia State doesn't finally creep up on you...

Georgia State crept up close enough last year.

(05-04-2015 08:28 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 12:44 AM)bamaEagle Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 07:25 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  I uderstand the logic of going with the two best teams, but let's face it, at our level, would that really make a difference to anyone? I've never been a proponent of a championship game for the Belt though if we did I'd rather see it come down to two division winners.

That way Georgia Southern couldn't keep avoiding playing the Cajuns.

The Cajuns would just have to worry about beating App and pray that Georgia State doesn't finally creep up on you...

Georgia State crept up close enough last year.

If we had a ccg at a neutral site it would probably be a money loser for both schools and would have the potential of knocking one team out of a better bowl game by adding one more loss from a g5 team to their record..

(05-07-2015 10:02 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 08:28 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 12:44 AM)bamaEagle Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 07:25 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  I uderstand the logic of going with the two best teams, but let's face it, at our level, would that really make a difference to anyone? I've never been a proponent of a championship game for the Belt though if we did I'd rather see it come down to two division winners.

That way Georgia Southern couldn't keep avoiding playing the Cajuns.

The Cajuns would just have to worry about beating App and pray that Georgia State doesn't finally creep up on you...

Georgia State crept up close enough last year.

If we had a ccg at a neutral site it would probably be a money loser for both schools and would have the potential of knocking one team out of a better bowl game by adding one more loss from a g5 team to their record..

Site might have to be at highest ranked Division champ. And I'd rather have it be two division champs playing each other, this is imop more beneficial for allowing your programs to "Rise". Keeping division champs as the opponents might also give one team an easier game to win, and avoid having to play a team twice.

I don't worry about the last part of the argument against a ccg. If you can't win the CCG then you blew it on the field. The other side of that is that if you win it, it can propel you into the Access slot over another program and might keep a team from another conference leap frogging over you into the Access spot in the same manner that the Big12 teams were left out of the playoff.

(05-07-2015 02:04 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 10:02 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 08:28 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 12:44 AM)bamaEagle Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 07:25 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  I uderstand the logic of going with the two best teams, but let's face it, at our level, would that really make a difference to anyone? I've never been a proponent of a championship game for the Belt though if we did I'd rather see it come down to two division winners.

That way Georgia Southern couldn't keep avoiding playing the Cajuns.

The Cajuns would just have to worry about beating App and pray that Georgia State doesn't finally creep up on you...

Georgia State crept up close enough last year.

If we had a ccg at a neutral site it would probably be a money loser for both schools and would have the potential of knocking one team out of a better bowl game by adding one more loss from a g5 team to their record..

Site might have to be at highest ranked Division champ. And I'd rather have it be two division champs playing each other, this is imop more beneficial for allowing your programs to "Rise". Keeping division champs as the opponents might also give one team an easier game to win, and avoid having to play a team twice.

I don't worry about the last part of the argument against a ccg. If you can't win the CCG then you blew it on the field. The other side of that is that if you win it, it can propel you into the Access slot over another program and might keep a team from another conference leap frogging over you into the Access spot in the same manner that the Big12 teams were left out of the playoff.

the b12 teams were left out because they were baylor or tcu and a big10 team named ohio state became available. much more national appeal in the first year of the playoffs. had the b12 teams been texas and ou it would have been tougher for the committee to pass one of them up

(05-08-2015 12:09 PM)runamuck Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 02:04 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 10:02 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 08:28 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 12:44 AM)bamaEagle Wrote:  The Cajuns would just have to worry about beating App and pray that Georgia State doesn't finally creep up on you...

Georgia State crept up close enough last year.

If we had a ccg at a neutral site it would probably be a money loser for both schools and would have the potential of knocking one team out of a better bowl game by adding one more loss from a g5 team to their record..

Site might have to be at highest ranked Division champ. And I'd rather have it be two division champs playing each other, this is imop more beneficial for allowing your programs to "Rise". Keeping division champs as the opponents might also give one team an easier game to win, and avoid having to play a team twice.

I don't worry about the last part of the argument against a ccg. If you can't win the CCG then you blew it on the field. The other side of that is that if you win it, it can propel you into the Access slot over another program and might keep a team from another conference leap frogging over you into the Access spot in the same manner that the Big12 teams were left out of the playoff.

the b12 teams were left out because they were baylor or tcu and a big10 team named ohio state became available. much more national appeal in the first year of the playoffs. had the b12 teams been texas and ou it would have been tougher for the committee to pass one of them up

+100