The AAC has announced its conference football schedule format for the two NCAA-waiver years of 2020 and 2021. Basically, divisions are gone, everyone will play an 8-game schedule, and everyone will play all the teams once in those two years. What is TBA is how the two teams will be picked for the CCG:


https://www.tulsaworld.com/sports/colleg...30d16.html

Hopefully they'll select the 2 highest ranked teams to maximize the getting the access bid.

(11-19-2019 10:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Hopefully they'll select the 2 highest ranked teams to maximize the getting the access bid.

I agree that is the likely choice, though one problem is that the AAC might not have two ranked teams when it is time to choose the CCG participants. So there needs to be a more elaborate tie-breaker format.

Because with just 8 games played, ties are a distinct possibility.

(11-19-2019 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 10:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Hopefully they'll select the 2 highest ranked teams to maximize the getting the access bid.

I agree that is the likely choice, though one problem is that the AAC might not have two ranked teams when it is time to choose the CCG participants. So there needs to be a more elaborate tie-breaker format.

Because with just 8 games played, ties are a distinct possibility.

Simulated BCS rankings?

(11-19-2019 11:07 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 10:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Hopefully they'll select the 2 highest ranked teams to maximize the getting the access bid.

I agree that is the likely choice, though one problem is that the AAC might not have two ranked teams when it is time to choose the CCG participants. So there needs to be a more elaborate tie-breaker format.

Because with just 8 games played, ties are a distinct possibility.

Simulated BCS rankings?

Yeah that would make sense, or some other metric similar. I don't really care which but just something that ensures the 2 strongest teams with the best chance of getting the access bowl play.

(11-19-2019 11:12 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:07 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 10:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Hopefully they'll select the 2 highest ranked teams to maximize the getting the access bid.

I agree that is the likely choice, though one problem is that the AAC might not have two ranked teams when it is time to choose the CCG participants. So there needs to be a more elaborate tie-breaker format.

Because with just 8 games played, ties are a distinct possibility.

Simulated BCS rankings?

Yeah that would make sense, or some other metric similar. I don't really care which but just something that ensures the 2 strongest teams with the best chance of getting the access bowl play.

Most importantly... something determined prior to the season so everyone knows week to week where they stand and a reasonable idea of how to improve their circumstances if their schedule permits it.

(11-19-2019 11:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:12 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:07 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 10:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Hopefully they'll select the 2 highest ranked teams to maximize the getting the access bid.

I agree that is the likely choice, though one problem is that the AAC might not have two ranked teams when it is time to choose the CCG participants. So there needs to be a more elaborate tie-breaker format.

Because with just 8 games played, ties are a distinct possibility.

Simulated BCS rankings?

Yeah that would make sense, or some other metric similar. I don't really care which but just something that ensures the 2 strongest teams with the best chance of getting the access bowl play.

Most importantly... something determined prior to the season so everyone knows week to week where they stand and a reasonable idea of how to improve their circumstances if their schedule permits it.

Yes, the procedure can't be something determined on the fly in the middle of the season. Has to be established before the 2020 season kicks off.

Of course, one problem with using CFP or other rankings is that you are in essence letting voters pick your CCG teams rather than having it decided on the field.

(11-19-2019 11:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:12 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:07 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree that is the likely choice, though one problem is that the AAC might not have two ranked teams when it is time to choose the CCG participants. So there needs to be a more elaborate tie-breaker format.

Because with just 8 games played, ties are a distinct possibility.

Simulated BCS rankings?

Yeah that would make sense, or some other metric similar. I don't really care which but just something that ensures the 2 strongest teams with the best chance of getting the access bowl play.

Most importantly... something determined prior to the season so everyone knows week to week where they stand and a reasonable idea of how to improve their circumstances if their schedule permits it.

Yes, the procedure can't be something determined on the fly in the middle of the season. Has to be established before the 2020 season kicks off.

Of course, one problem with using CFP or other rankings is that you are in essence letting voters pick your CCG teams rather than having it decided on the field.

I think that it would be fair to go by conference records first, then head-to-head as the first tie-breaker, and then CFP rankings as the third tie-breaker. After that, they'd probably essentially have to go through an NFL-type process of seeing how they played against common opponents in order.

As an FYI, here's the Big 12 championship game tiebreaker procedure:

https://big12sports.com/news/2008/7/31/1546006.aspx

Ultimately, if they go through all of the tiebreaker metrics and there is *still* a a tie, then they effectively pull a name out of a hat at that point.

(11-19-2019 11:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:12 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:07 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree that is the likely choice, though one problem is that the AAC might not have two ranked teams when it is time to choose the CCG participants. So there needs to be a more elaborate tie-breaker format.

Because with just 8 games played, ties are a distinct possibility.

Simulated BCS rankings?

Yeah that would make sense, or some other metric similar. I don't really care which but just something that ensures the 2 strongest teams with the best chance of getting the access bowl play.

Most importantly... something determined prior to the season so everyone knows week to week where they stand and a reasonable idea of how to improve their circumstances if their schedule permits it.

Yes, the procedure can't be something determined on the fly in the middle of the season. Has to be established before the 2020 season kicks off.

Of course, one problem with using CFP or other rankings is that you are in essence letting voters pick your CCG teams rather than having it decided on the field.

But havent you railed against the idea of letting on the field action determine the best teams for years.

(11-19-2019 11:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:12 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:07 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Simulated BCS rankings?

Yeah that would make sense, or some other metric similar. I don't really care which but just something that ensures the 2 strongest teams with the best chance of getting the access bowl play.

Most importantly... something determined prior to the season so everyone knows week to week where they stand and a reasonable idea of how to improve their circumstances if their schedule permits it.

Yes, the procedure can't be something determined on the fly in the middle of the season. Has to be established before the 2020 season kicks off.

Of course, one problem with using CFP or other rankings is that you are in essence letting voters pick your CCG teams rather than having it decided on the field.

I think that it would be fair to go by conference records first, then head-to-head as the first tie-breaker, and then CFP rankings as the third tie-breaker. After that, they'd probably essentially have to go through an NFL-type process of seeing how they played against common opponents in order.

As an FYI, here's the Big 12 championship game tiebreaker procedure:

https://big12sports.com/news/2008/7/31/1546006.aspx

Ultimately, if they go through all of the tiebreaker metrics and there is *still* a a tie, then they effectively pull a name out of a hat at that point.

Seems reasonable. Creating reasonable tie breaking procedures is not that hard. Plenty of existing examples and models to choose from.

(11-19-2019 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 10:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Hopefully they'll select the 2 highest ranked teams to maximize the getting the access bid.

I agree that is the likely choice, though one problem is that the AAC might not have two ranked teams when it is time to choose the CCG participants. So there needs to be a more elaborate tie-breaker format.

Because with just 8 games played, ties are a distinct possibility.

If your looking to maximize NY6 invites:

1. Conference overall records to determine top 2
2. If tied use CFP rankings
3. If 2 teams are not ranked in CFP rankings, use either head to head or extended AP rankings (to include the others receiving votes section). AAC will have more than 2 teams receiving votes every year

Wouldn't it be easiest to just do H2H against highest ranked (conference record) common opponent? If both teams didn't play the next ranked team, just go down the list until there is one; then, you could do margin of victory.

I don't think it will be very hard to come up with an established (and fair) procedure for tie-breakers.

(11-19-2019 12:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:12 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:07 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Simulated BCS rankings?

Yeah that would make sense, or some other metric similar. I don't really care which but just something that ensures the 2 strongest teams with the best chance of getting the access bowl play.

Most importantly... something determined prior to the season so everyone knows week to week where they stand and a reasonable idea of how to improve their circumstances if their schedule permits it.

Yes, the procedure can't be something determined on the fly in the middle of the season. Has to be established before the 2020 season kicks off.

Of course, one problem with using CFP or other rankings is that you are in essence letting voters pick your CCG teams rather than having it decided on the field.

But havent you railed against the idea of letting on the field action determine the best teams for years.

Actually, I've never argued against letting action on the field determine the best teams. In fact, e.g., when I oppose having auto-bids for conference champs in a hypothetical 8-team playoff, it's because conference championships are determined by ignoring action on the field, namely OOC games.

Nobody reads anything around here. SMH.

I saw Tulsa's '20 and '21 schedules in the link. I was surprised to see that Tulsa and Memphis do not play next year. Is there a link to all the '20 and '21 AAC conference schedules?

Which of the likely contenders miss each other during the next two regular seasons?

(11-19-2019 11:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:12 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:07 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree that is the likely choice, though one problem is that the AAC might not have two ranked teams when it is time to choose the CCG participants. So there needs to be a more elaborate tie-breaker format.

Because with just 8 games played, ties are a distinct possibility.

Simulated BCS rankings?

Yeah that would make sense, or some other metric similar. I don't really care which but just something that ensures the 2 strongest teams with the best chance of getting the access bowl play.

Most importantly... something determined prior to the season so everyone knows week to week where they stand and a reasonable idea of how to improve their circumstances if their schedule permits it.

Yes, the procedure can't be something determined on the fly in the middle of the season. Has to be established before the 2020 season kicks off.

Of course, one problem with using CFP or other rankings is that you are in essence letting voters pick your CCG teams rather than having it decided on the field.

You can just pick the two highest ranked teams determined by conference record i.e. non-conference does not matter similar to how it is today. The two best conference record teams play each other with tie breakers in place if there is an issue.

(11-19-2019 02:01 PM)YNot Wrote:  I saw Tulsa's '20 and '21 schedules in the link. I was surprised to see that Tulsa and Memphis do not play next year. Is there a link to all the '20 and '21 AAC conference schedules?

Which of the likely contenders miss each other during the next two regular seasons?

Basically, we kept the divisional scheduling format. Except there aren't divisions anymore.

Everybody in the old East division plays everybody else in the old East plus 4 crossover games vs the old West.

With one exception, everybody in the old West division plays everybody else in the old West, plus crossover games.

In 2020, the exception is Memphis and Tulsa don't play each other, and have 4 old West and 4 old East foes.

In 2021, the exception is Navy and Tulane don't play each other, and have 4 old West and 4 old East foes.

(11-19-2019 02:41 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 02:01 PM)YNot Wrote:  I saw Tulsa's '20 and '21 schedules in the link. I was surprised to see that Tulsa and Memphis do not play next year. Is there a link to all the '20 and '21 AAC conference schedules?

Which of the likely contenders miss each other during the next two regular seasons?

Basically, we kept the divisional scheduling format. Except there aren't divisions anymore.

Everybody in the old East division plays everybody else in the old East plus 4 crossover games vs the old West.

With one exception, everybody in the old West division plays everybody else in the old West, plus crossover games.

In 2020, the exception is Memphis and Tulsa don't play each other, and have 4 old West and 4 old East foes.

In 2021, the exception is Navy and Tulane don't play each other, and have 4 old West and 4 old East foes.

What do the East v. West crossover games look like? Do UCF and Cincinnati play Houston and Memphis both years?

UCF, Cincy, Houston and Memphis all play each other next year.

However, in 2021 Houston misses UCF and Cincy while Memphis misses Cincy.

They are all listed here. The parenthetical tells you which teams a school does not play.

(11-19-2019 02:14 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:12 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 11:07 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Simulated BCS rankings?

Yeah that would make sense, or some other metric similar. I don't really care which but just something that ensures the 2 strongest teams with the best chance of getting the access bowl play.

Most importantly... something determined prior to the season so everyone knows week to week where they stand and a reasonable idea of how to improve their circumstances if their schedule permits it.

Yes, the procedure can't be something determined on the fly in the middle of the season. Has to be established before the 2020 season kicks off.

Of course, one problem with using CFP or other rankings is that you are in essence letting voters pick your CCG teams rather than having it decided on the field.

You can just pick the two highest ranked teams determined by conference record i.e. non-conference does not matter similar to how it is today. The two best conference record teams play each other with tie breakers in place if there is an issue.

Bottom line is, with no divisions and no full round-robin (as the Big 12 has), there is no easy and clean method. You don't even necessarily have H2H as a tie-breaker, because tied teams may not have played each other.

Probably why the CCG determination is TBA.

(11-19-2019 02:41 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 02:01 PM)YNot Wrote:  I saw Tulsa's '20 and '21 schedules in the link. I was surprised to see that Tulsa and Memphis do not play next year. Is there a link to all the '20 and '21 AAC conference schedules?

Which of the likely contenders miss each other during the next two regular seasons?

Basically, we kept the divisional scheduling format. Except there aren't divisions anymore.

Everybody in the old East division plays everybody else in the old East plus 4 crossover games vs the old West.

With one exception, everybody in the old West division plays everybody else in the old West, plus crossover games.

In 2020, the exception is Memphis and Tulsa don't play each other, and have 4 old West and 4 old East foes.

In 2021, the exception is Navy and Tulane don't play each other, and have 4 old West and 4 old East foes.

So they are basically doing what the MAC did, which WAS have divisions, just don't have everyone play each other.

And that is what I thought they got the waiver for, round robin in division, not a waiver of round robin for the 10 team Big 12 type ccg.