It’s my latest “it’s so crazy it just might work” idea. The winners of the previous season divisions would square off in week 0 of the following season. Here is my reasoning why this would be a good idea:

1 Fans now have time to plan a trip rather than make short notice travel arrangements.

2 On top of being well attended, it would be well viewed on tv being the best game played on that day.

3 Imagine selling a high school recruit on the idea they would be playing for a conference championship in their first game.

4 If you are a good team and lose the game, you could still possibly climb your way back into playoff contention.

5 You could schedule regular conference games in Week 14 (the usual week of conference championship games.) So, technically FSU could get a bye week in week 12, play UF in week 13, play BC in week 14

(06-13-2019 05:30 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  It’s my latest “it’s so crazy it just might work” idea. The winners of the previous season divisions would square off in week 0 of the following season. Here is my reasoning why this would be a good idea:

1 Fans now have time to plan a trip rather than make short notice travel arrangements.

2 On top of being well attended, it would be well viewed on tv being the best game played on that day.

3 Imagine selling a high school recruit on the idea they would be playing for a conference championship in their first game.

4 If you are a good team and lose the game, you could still possibly climb your way back into playoff contention.

5 You could schedule regular conference games in Week 14 (the usual week of conference championship games.) So, technically FSU could get a bye week in week 12, play UF in week 13, play BC in week 14

So, how do you determine the regular season champ?

Dear Buddha,

Please get us all through this summer without completely losing our minds.

I was thinking it would determine the previous season or you could distinguish a “regular season champ” at the end of the season for the team with the best record and a “championship game winner”. You can make a trophy for both accomplishments.

Those teams could look vastly different than they did at the end of the previous year. Transfers, early draft entry, graduation, new coach(es), academic issues... there are thousands of things that can change.

It would not really be a championship. It is just the first game of the season.

If you were good last year, then likely you are good again. Teams can also look vastly different at the end of the year when injuries and suspensions start to mount. I see more pros than cons in this idea.

Since this wouldn't be a championship game, but rather just an exhibition game between the previous year's division leaders, I can't imagine the NCAA allowing it to be a 13th game for two teams who hadn't yet won a regular season game.

(06-13-2019 05:30 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  It’s my latest “it’s so crazy it just might work” idea. The winners of the previous season divisions would square off in week 0 of the following season.

A championship game at the end of the year would make more money. Participantion in said CCG must be determined by conference play (at least divisional round-robin).

But here is a way you could make Notre Dame eligible in a pseudo-CCG (pCCG):

Schedule the CCG the third weekend of November; teams are evaluated on divisional play only. The fourth weekend in November is Rivalry weekend, the first Saturday in December features everyone's 8th conference game (hosted by the 7 teams from one division) AND Notre Dame's 5th ACC game, set to (usually) be played at a neutral site.

Pairings for these 8 December games are determined (by committee) after the second weekend of November, at the same time the CCG participants are chosen. The neutral site game would feature Notre Dame unless two ACC teams slated to travel that weekend still have 2 or fewer losses.

Here is an example, using records from last year, after both divisions complete their round-robins. Rivalry week opponents are listed as well.

10-0 (6-0*) Clemson (vs. South Carolina)
7-3 (5-1) Syracuse (vs. Pittsburgh)
7-3 (3-3) NC State (vs. UNC)
6-4 (3-3) BC (vs. Miami)
4-6 (3-3) Virginia Tech (vs. Virginia)
5-5 (2-4) Wake Forest (vs. Duke)
2-8 (0-6) Louisville (vs. Kentucky)

7-3 (3-3) Virginia (vs. Virginia Tech)
7-3 (3-3) Duke (vs. Wake Forest)
6-4 (4-2*) Pittsburgh (vs. Syracuse)
6-4 (4-2) Georgia Tech (vs. Georgia)
6-4 (3-3) Miami (vs. BC)
5-5 (3-3) Florida St (vs. Florida)
2-7 (1-5) UNC (vs. NC State)
*will play against each other in the technical CCG on the third weekend of November to determine an Orange Bowl spot unless the winner advances to the CFP Semifinals

The ACC pCCG in December would feature Clemson vs. Notre Dame (either at Clemson or the neutral site, depending on which division is hosting the December games). The other 7 pairings would be determined by relative team strength, maximizing bowl spots, and team histories.

Another independent, like UMass, would need to be contracted by the conference to play a road game that final week (BYU may be an interesting pick too, though they may not want to travel that much).

So long as there is a playoff contender, the ACC will always have a game to put on prime-time TV against other P5 CCGs; even if its a ho-hum Clemson vs. Pittsburgh/Duke/Virginia matchup.

NOTE: I switched VT and FSU to balance the ACC-SEC rivalry games between divisions. Both teams have similar historic and current strengths.

While teams would play each other roughly as much as they do now, divisions would feel even more separated because cross-division games would carry less weight. Divisional realignment would then need to be revisited; teams could select 3 permanent rivals and divisions could be reworked (no cycle) each year to ensure everyone else sees each other just about every other year.

Check the Week 3 schedule, the real ACCCG will be played in the Dome.

Anyway, the Atlantic winner needs the CG against the Coastal winner after the season to keep up the momentum as they prepare for Bama and some other teams to be named later.

(06-14-2019 11:34 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  If you were good last year, then likely you are good again. Teams can also look vastly different at the end of the year when injuries and suspensions start to mount. I see more pros than cons in this idea.

I see no pros at all. If you lose your star QB to injury and the backup is only 1/2 as good - so be it. Depth is part of the game. Playing for a championship at the end of the season is the nature of sports.

(06-16-2019 11:58 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:34 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  If you were good last year, then likely you are good again. Teams can also look vastly different at the end of the year when injuries and suspensions start to mount. I see more pros than cons in this idea.

I see no pros at all. If you lose your star QB to injury and the backup is only 1/2 as good - so be it. Depth is part of the game. Playing for a championship at the end of the season is the nature of sports.

It's not the nature of sports. It's a relatively recent phenomenon in some sports, college football being one of them. And where it exists, it is not because of sports per se, it's because of money. The Super Bowl was a made for TV event.

(06-17-2019 10:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 11:58 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:34 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  If you were good last year, then likely you are good again. Teams can also look vastly different at the end of the year when injuries and suspensions start to mount. I see more pros than cons in this idea.

I see no pros at all. If you lose your star QB to injury and the backup is only 1/2 as good - so be it. Depth is part of the game. Playing for a championship at the end of the season is the nature of sports.

It's not the nature of sports. It's a relatively recent phenomenon in some sports, college football being one of them. And where it exists, it is not because of sports per se, it's because of money. The Super Bowl was a made for TV event.

Have to disagree. I've played sports all my life, and when there was a championship game or tournament it was ALWAYS at the end of the regular season - and none of the leagues I ever played in generated any money, so forget that theory!

(06-17-2019 10:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 10:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 11:58 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:34 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  If you were good last year, then likely you are good again. Teams can also look vastly different at the end of the year when injuries and suspensions start to mount. I see more pros than cons in this idea.

I see no pros at all. If you lose your star QB to injury and the backup is only 1/2 as good - so be it. Depth is part of the game. Playing for a championship at the end of the season is the nature of sports.

It's not the nature of sports. It's a relatively recent phenomenon in some sports, college football being one of them. And where it exists, it is not because of sports per se, it's because of money. The Super Bowl was a made for TV event.

Have to disagree. I've played sports all my life, and when there was a championship game or tournament it was ALWAYS at the end of the regular season - and none of the leagues I ever played in generated any money, so forget that theory!

The operative words here are "when there was a championship game or tournament". How long has the ACC held a CCG in football? Or any other conference? How about the so-called "playoffs" which didn't exist in college football for more than a century?

All of these things exist because they make money - lots of it. When I played sports in my youth, the champion was the team with the best regular season record, and if there were ties, we had co-champions. That was true throughout college football until recently. When there was a tie in the Big Ten, they didn't even always use head to head as a tie breaker. The Rose Bowl representative was the school that hadn't been there for the longer time.

Championship tournaments are here to stay. But they aren't the "nature" of sports. They are the evolution of sports.

(06-17-2019 11:12 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 10:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 10:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 11:58 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:34 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  If you were good last year, then likely you are good again. Teams can also look vastly different at the end of the year when injuries and suspensions start to mount. I see more pros than cons in this idea.

I see no pros at all. If you lose your star QB to injury and the backup is only 1/2 as good - so be it. Depth is part of the game. Playing for a championship at the end of the season is the nature of sports.

It's not the nature of sports. It's a relatively recent phenomenon in some sports, college football being one of them. And where it exists, it is not because of sports per se, it's because of money. The Super Bowl was a made for TV event.

Have to disagree. I've played sports all my life, and when there was a championship game or tournament it was ALWAYS at the end of the regular season - and none of the leagues I ever played in generated any money, so forget that theory!

The operative words here are "when there was a championship game or tournament". How long has the ACC held a CCG in football? Or any other conference? How about the so-called "playoffs" which didn't exist in college football for more than a century?

All of these things exist because they make money - lots of it. When I played sports in my youth, the champion was the team with the best regular season record, and if there were ties, we had co-champions. That was true throughout college football until recently. When there was a tie in the Big Ten, they didn't even always use head to head as a tie breaker. The Rose Bowl representative was the school that hadn't been there for the longer time.

Championship tournaments are here to stay. But they aren't the "nature" of sports. They are the evolution of sports.

True. I was thinking of the OP, which was considering no whether, but when to hold a championship (if any)