Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Big Ten might scrap football divisions
Author Message
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #81
RE: Big Ten might scrap football divisions
(01-27-2022 10:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-27-2022 02:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-27-2022 01:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-27-2022 02:22 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-26-2022 06:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  Exactly.

And you will have vast disparity in schedules. All you have to do is look at the 11 team Big 10. Basically, whoever managed to skip Ohio St. and Michigan immediately became a contender. And that was with only 11 teams and 8 games, so you only missed 2 teams.

Its a really, really horrible idea that flies against one of the key tenets of expanding the playoffs-deciding it on the field. Now it will be decided by the schedule makers and obscure tiebreaks.

One of the worst ideas out there for any conference over 12 teams and its problematic for 11 and 12 team conferences.

Having divisions does nothing to eliminate the possibility of messy or even unfair tiebreakers. The Big 12 once had a 3-way division tie.

Much more rare. And the teams actually all played each other, unlike what you would get.

Is it more rare? If we went back and looked at P conference standings before the conference used divisions, in what percentage of a conference's seasons was there a 3-way tie for first place? Has to be an extremely low percentage. The Pac-8/10 had one 3-way tie for first (1959, when the conference had only 5 teams) in 52 seasons. The Big 8 had one 3-way tie for first (1976) in almost 100 years of football.

You've made my point. Its pretty rare in these situations where it is round robins. A bigger issue is multi-way ties for 2nd between teams who haven't all played head to head (if you understand normal curves, you will understand why 2nd is a bigger issue than 1st).

But even just looking at first in the SEC which did not play a round robin before division play there are a lot of cases of top teams not playing:
1934 2 unbeatens
1939 3 unbeatens
1946 2 unbeatens
1951 2 unbeatens
1961 2 unbeatens
1966 2 unbeatens
1976 2 once beatens (but did play)
1977 2 unbeatens
1981 2 unbeatens
1988 2 once beatens (but did play)
1989 3 once beatens

And looking at 2nd:
1935 2 1 loss teams
1938 2 at 4-1-1
1941 (not really applicable since they will play even # of games, but it was 1. 4-0-1, 2.-5. 3-1-0, 5-2-0, 3-1-1, 2-1-1
1942 2 1 loss teams
1943 only 4 teams, 3-0, 1-1, 2-2, 0-3
1947 6-1 first, 4-1 2nd, 5-2 3rd
1948 2 1 loss teams
1953 1. 4-0-3, then 3 teams at 4-1-1
1954 3 2 loss teams
1955 2 1 loss, 1 ties teams
1959 2 1 loss teams
1962 2 1 loss teams
1964 3 2 loss teams
1971 2 1 loss teams
1974 2 2 loss teams
1975 3 1 loss teams
1980 2 1 loss teams
1985 2 1 loss 1 tie teams
1990 2 two loss teams

Counting the 3 way ties for first, that is 21 times from 1933-1991 that they would need to use some form of tiebreak and unlike in divisions, there is not necessarily a head to head.

Those old SEC seasons aren’t a good measure. There were teams playing 4 or 5 conference games in a 10 team conference.
01-28-2022 01:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Offline
CSNBB's Big 10 Cheerleader
*

Posts: 8,576
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 640
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #82
RE: Big Ten might scrap football divisions
(01-28-2022 01:24 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-27-2022 10:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-27-2022 02:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-27-2022 01:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-27-2022 02:22 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Having divisions does nothing to eliminate the possibility of messy or even unfair tiebreakers. The Big 12 once had a 3-way division tie.

Much more rare. And the teams actually all played each other, unlike what you would get.

Is it more rare? If we went back and looked at P conference standings before the conference used divisions, in what percentage of a conference's seasons was there a 3-way tie for first place? Has to be an extremely low percentage. The Pac-8/10 had one 3-way tie for first (1959, when the conference had only 5 teams) in 52 seasons. The Big 8 had one 3-way tie for first (1976) in almost 100 years of football.

You've made my point. Its pretty rare in these situations where it is round robins. A bigger issue is multi-way ties for 2nd between teams who haven't all played head to head (if you understand normal curves, you will understand why 2nd is a bigger issue than 1st).

But even just looking at first in the SEC which did not play a round robin before division play there are a lot of cases of top teams not playing:
1934 2 unbeatens
1939 3 unbeatens
1946 2 unbeatens
1951 2 unbeatens
1961 2 unbeatens
1966 2 unbeatens
1976 2 once beatens (but did play)
1977 2 unbeatens
1981 2 unbeatens
1988 2 once beatens (but did play)
1989 3 once beatens

And looking at 2nd:
1935 2 1 loss teams
1938 2 at 4-1-1
1941 (not really applicable since they will play even # of games, but it was 1. 4-0-1, 2.-5. 3-1-0, 5-2-0, 3-1-1, 2-1-1
1942 2 1 loss teams
1943 only 4 teams, 3-0, 1-1, 2-2, 0-3
1947 6-1 first, 4-1 2nd, 5-2 3rd
1948 2 1 loss teams
1953 1. 4-0-3, then 3 teams at 4-1-1
1954 3 2 loss teams
1955 2 1 loss, 1 ties teams
1959 2 1 loss teams
1962 2 1 loss teams
1964 3 2 loss teams
1971 2 1 loss teams
1974 2 2 loss teams
1975 3 1 loss teams
1980 2 1 loss teams
1985 2 1 loss 1 tie teams
1990 2 two loss teams

Counting the 3 way ties for first, that is 21 times from 1933-1991 that they would need to use some form of tiebreak and unlike in divisions, there is not necessarily a head to head.

Those old SEC seasons aren’t a good measure. There were teams playing 4 or 5 conference games in a 10 team conference.

Wow, even back then SEC teams didn't want to play each other!

When I was little I remember my dad (who is also an alumnus of Illinois just like my mom) bought a coffee mug that celebrated them making the Rose Bowl. I don't believe he's ever used it for coffee and it's still in his house. That was in the days of the old ten team Big Ten before Penn State joined. You know what Illinois' record in the Big Ten was? 9-0! They played 9 conference games when they had 10 teams!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Big_T...all_season

They moved to 8 games in 1985.

Meanwhile the 1982 Georgia team that Penn State beat in the 1983 Sugar Bowl only played 6 (SIX) SEC games! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Georg...tball_team

At that point South Carolina was not an SEC team so they were one of UGa's five non conference games. Of course GaTech was another non conference game. Clemson was another one. BYU was. The fifth was Memphis (State) who was 1-10 that year so they were probably the cupcake/buy game back then.
01-28-2022 07:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #83
RE: Big Ten might scrap football divisions
(01-28-2022 01:24 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-27-2022 10:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-27-2022 02:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-27-2022 01:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-27-2022 02:22 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Having divisions does nothing to eliminate the possibility of messy or even unfair tiebreakers. The Big 12 once had a 3-way division tie.

Much more rare. And the teams actually all played each other, unlike what you would get.

Is it more rare? If we went back and looked at P conference standings before the conference used divisions, in what percentage of a conference's seasons was there a 3-way tie for first place? Has to be an extremely low percentage. The Pac-8/10 had one 3-way tie for first (1959, when the conference had only 5 teams) in 52 seasons. The Big 8 had one 3-way tie for first (1976) in almost 100 years of football.

You've made my point. Its pretty rare in these situations where it is round robins. A bigger issue is multi-way ties for 2nd between teams who haven't all played head to head (if you understand normal curves, you will understand why 2nd is a bigger issue than 1st).

But even just looking at first in the SEC which did not play a round robin before division play there are a lot of cases of top teams not playing:
1934 2 unbeatens
1939 3 unbeatens
1946 2 unbeatens
1951 2 unbeatens
1961 2 unbeatens
1966 2 unbeatens
1976 2 once beatens (but did play)
1977 2 unbeatens
1981 2 unbeatens
1988 2 once beatens (but did play)
1989 3 once beatens

And looking at 2nd:
1935 2 1 loss teams
1938 2 at 4-1-1
1941 (not really applicable since they will play even # of games, but it was 1. 4-0-1, 2.-5. 3-1-0, 5-2-0, 3-1-1, 2-1-1
1942 2 1 loss teams
1943 only 4 teams, 3-0, 1-1, 2-2, 0-3
1947 6-1 first, 4-1 2nd, 5-2 3rd
1948 2 1 loss teams
1953 1. 4-0-3, then 3 teams at 4-1-1
1954 3 2 loss teams
1955 2 1 loss, 1 ties teams
1959 2 1 loss teams
1962 2 1 loss teams
1964 3 2 loss teams
1971 2 1 loss teams
1974 2 2 loss teams
1975 3 1 loss teams
1980 2 1 loss teams
1985 2 1 loss 1 tie teams
1990 2 two loss teams

Counting the 3 way ties for first, that is 21 times from 1933-1991 that they would need to use some form of tiebreak and unlike in divisions, there is not necessarily a head to head.

Those old SEC seasons aren’t a good measure. There were teams playing 4 or 5 conference games in a 10 team conference.

Mostly 6 and 7, sometimes 8. So they missed 3 to 5, a few 6 out of 12 teams. With 14 they will miss 5 of 14 with 8 game schedule
01-28-2022 08:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #84
RE: Big Ten might scrap football divisions
(01-27-2022 08:05 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(01-27-2022 02:22 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-26-2022 06:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-26-2022 06:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Divisionless will lead to messy tie breakers and lots of aggravation—mark my words

The data back to the 90s supports this.

Exactly.

And you will have vast disparity in schedules. All you have to do is look at the 11 team Big 10. Basically, whoever managed to skip Ohio St. and Michigan immediately became a contender. And that was with only 11 teams and 8 games, so you only missed 2 teams.

Its a really, really horrible idea that flies against one of the key tenets of expanding the playoffs-deciding it on the field. Now it will be decided by the schedule makers and obscure tiebreaks.

One of the worst ideas out there for any conference over 12 teams and its problematic for 11 and 12 team conferences.

Having divisions does nothing to eliminate the possibility of messy or even unfair tiebreakers. The Big 12 once had a 3-way division tie.

But having divisions cleans up most of the ties since in a 2-way tie for division champ you have a 100% guarantee of a H2H result to break the tie and in tie between 3 or more teams you also have round robin play among the tied teams as a starting point for breaking the tie.

I work in data and analytics. I’ve gone back and looked at every season since CCGs and divisional play began and about a third of the time the result is chaos when you take away the divisions and this problem will only increase now that we have 14 and 16 team conferences as opposed to 12.

It only "cleans up" a tie if we accept that H2H is a clean way to break a tie and not a messy one.

In practical terms, I would agree H2H is clean, in the sense that it is widely accepted. Tell someone that there was a tie, and it was broken by H2H, and they almost always nod approvingly. It doesn't generate controversy.

But that doesn't mean that conceptually it is actually a clean way. IMO, it's as arbitrary as any other way. It just happens to be socially acceptable, so to speak, whereas other methods are viewed as less valid. Mistakenly, IMO.
(This post was last modified: 01-28-2022 08:47 AM by quo vadis.)
01-28-2022 08:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #85
RE: Big Ten might scrap football divisions
(01-26-2022 04:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-26-2022 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-26-2022 03:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Looks like the Big Ten primarily wants to figure out whether no-divisions helps their chances in the next playoff format, and also whether to play 8 conference games instead of 9 to accommodate more games vs. Pac-12 and ACC teams.

IMO, the takeaways are:

1) The B1G expects there to *be* a new playoff format, meaning they don't expect anyone to carry their stonewalling as far as keeping the current 4-team CFP, at least not beyond 2026.

2) The B1G expects that a "top x champs" autobid format, not "P5 autobids", is likely to be the format. Because if it's "top x", then it behooves every conference to abandon divisions, to avoid some 7-5 team making the CCG and upsetting the standard-bearer, possibly knocking the conference out of the playoffs.

A 7-5 team winning a division is almost impossible, even more so with 9 conference games, because it would pretty much require a team that lost 3 non-conference games to win its division.

A 9-3 team winning a division and pulling off a CCG upset is very possible, though. And a no-division format only slightly reduces that possibility.
In 2021, the SEC was the only P conference in which both CCG teams had only one loss, and the other 4 still would have had at least one team in the CCG with multiple losses even if all of them, and not just the Big 12, used a no-division.

The no-division format helps a CCG upset loser's chances of getting an at large playoff place, in that the loss isn't as bad on paper if they can only lose to the best or 2nd best team in the conference, as opposed to being knocked off by the winner of an inferior division. But even then there's no guarantee that the CCG loss won't knock them out.

Not playing a CCG is the only sure way to solidify your top team's place in a playoff, and to not hurt the playoff chances of a potential CCG loser. But apparently there's no conference willing to leave CCG money on the table to do that.

That may be statistically true, but I think this notion is out there, and it will drive us towards no-divisions nonetheless if there is the belief that we are going to a "top x champs" autobid format.

E.g., in the recent AAC thread, Aresco was quoted as saying the AAC might not return to divisions even after it has 14 members, and he noted the risk of having a weak, poor-record division winner upsetting a division winner who is poised to make the playoffs. So the fear seems to be out there, and I would bet it is driving B1G thinking as well.

As for not playing a CCG, I don't think any conference is giving up their CCG for a playoff format. It's a showcase event for the conference beyond even the money.

Also, sure, if you have a team that would be a sure-fire playoff team going in to the CCG, then a CCG puts that at risk. But OTOH, if you don't have such a team, a CCG is a chance to propel one upwards in to the playoffs. E.g., if Baylor and TCU had played a CCG in 2014, the winner would likely have made the playoffs over Ohio State. Not having a CCG was a big handicap for the B12 that year.

Another example: this year, I believe that had the playoff choices been made before the CCGs, the Big 12 would have had no chance to put a team in the top 4. However, had Oklahoma State beaten Baylor in the CCG, I think they would have propelled past Cincy in to the final playoff spot. It didn't happen because Baylor won, but the CCG gave them a chance.
(This post was last modified: 01-28-2022 08:58 AM by quo vadis.)
01-28-2022 08:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goofus Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,285
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 148
I Root For: Iowa
Location: chicago suburbs
Post: #86
RE: Big Ten might scrap football divisions
(01-28-2022 08:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-26-2022 04:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-26-2022 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-26-2022 03:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Looks like the Big Ten primarily wants to figure out whether no-divisions helps their chances in the next playoff format, and also whether to play 8 conference games instead of 9 to accommodate more games vs. Pac-12 and ACC teams.

IMO, the takeaways are:

1) The B1G expects there to *be* a new playoff format, meaning they don't expect anyone to carry their stonewalling as far as keeping the current 4-team CFP, at least not beyond 2026.

2) The B1G expects that a "top x champs" autobid format, not "P5 autobids", is likely to be the format. Because if it's "top x", then it behooves every conference to abandon divisions, to avoid some 7-5 team making the CCG and upsetting the standard-bearer, possibly knocking the conference out of the playoffs.

A 7-5 team winning a division is almost impossible, even more so with 9 conference games, because it would pretty much require a team that lost 3 non-conference games to win its division.

A 9-3 team winning a division and pulling off a CCG upset is very possible, though. And a no-division format only slightly reduces that possibility.
In 2021, the SEC was the only P conference in which both CCG teams had only one loss, and the other 4 still would have had at least one team in the CCG with multiple losses even if all of them, and not just the Big 12, used a no-division.

The no-division format helps a CCG upset loser's chances of getting an at large playoff place, in that the loss isn't as bad on paper if they can only lose to the best or 2nd best team in the conference, as opposed to being knocked off by the winner of an inferior division. But even then there's no guarantee that the CCG loss won't knock them out.

Not playing a CCG is the only sure way to solidify your top team's place in a playoff, and to not hurt the playoff chances of a potential CCG loser. But apparently there's no conference willing to leave CCG money on the table to do that.

That may be statistically true, but I think this notion is out there, and it will drive us towards no-divisions nonetheless if there is the belief that we are going to a "top x champs" autobid format.

E.g., in the recent AAC thread, Aresco was quoted as saying the AAC might not return to divisions even after it has 14 members, and he noted the risk of having a weak, poor-record division winner upsetting a division winner who is poised to make the playoffs. So the fear seems to be out there, and I would bet it is driving B1G thinking as well.

As for not playing a CCG, I don't think any conference is giving up their CCG for a playoff format. It's a showcase event for the conference beyond even the money.

Also, sure, if you have a team that would be a sure-fire playoff team going in to the CCG, then a CCG puts that at risk. But OTOH, if you don't have such a team, a CCG is a chance to propel one upwards in to the playoffs. E.g., if Baylor and TCU had played a CCG in 2014, the winner would likely have made the playoffs over Ohio State. Not having a CCG was a big handicap for the B12 that year.

Another example: this year, I believe that had the playoff choices been made before the CCGs, the Big 12 would have had no chance to put a team in the top 4. However, had Oklahoma State beaten Baylor in the CCG, I think they would have propelled past Cincy in to the final playoff spot. It didn't happen because Baylor won, but the CCG gave them a chance.

But all those examples become unimportant in an expanded playoff. In 2014 Baylor, TCU and OSU all would get into an expanded 8-team or 12-team playoff.

But I guess in an expanded playoff, I guess a CCG could now help a #13 team or lower get into the expanded playoffs. Its kinda a sliding scale as more teams are added to the playoffs.
01-28-2022 10:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bluesox Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,295
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 84
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #87
RE: Big Ten might scrap football divisions
Next step is jump to 15 with Kansas

UM, OSU, PSU, Rutgers, Maryland

MSU, NW, ILL, IU, Purdue

Wis, Min, Iowa, Neb, KU

Play a 4-2-2 format
01-28-2022 10:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #88
RE: Big Ten might scrap football divisions
(01-28-2022 07:12 AM)schmolik Wrote:  
(01-28-2022 01:24 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-27-2022 10:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-27-2022 02:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-27-2022 01:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  Much more rare. And the teams actually all played each other, unlike what you would get.

Is it more rare? If we went back and looked at P conference standings before the conference used divisions, in what percentage of a conference's seasons was there a 3-way tie for first place? Has to be an extremely low percentage. The Pac-8/10 had one 3-way tie for first (1959, when the conference had only 5 teams) in 52 seasons. The Big 8 had one 3-way tie for first (1976) in almost 100 years of football.

You've made my point. Its pretty rare in these situations where it is round robins. A bigger issue is multi-way ties for 2nd between teams who haven't all played head to head (if you understand normal curves, you will understand why 2nd is a bigger issue than 1st).

But even just looking at first in the SEC which did not play a round robin before division play there are a lot of cases of top teams not playing:
1934 2 unbeatens
1939 3 unbeatens
1946 2 unbeatens
1951 2 unbeatens
1961 2 unbeatens
1966 2 unbeatens
1976 2 once beatens (but did play)
1977 2 unbeatens
1981 2 unbeatens
1988 2 once beatens (but did play)
1989 3 once beatens

And looking at 2nd:
1935 2 1 loss teams
1938 2 at 4-1-1
1941 (not really applicable since they will play even # of games, but it was 1. 4-0-1, 2.-5. 3-1-0, 5-2-0, 3-1-1, 2-1-1
1942 2 1 loss teams
1943 only 4 teams, 3-0, 1-1, 2-2, 0-3
1947 6-1 first, 4-1 2nd, 5-2 3rd
1948 2 1 loss teams
1953 1. 4-0-3, then 3 teams at 4-1-1
1954 3 2 loss teams
1955 2 1 loss, 1 ties teams
1959 2 1 loss teams
1962 2 1 loss teams
1964 3 2 loss teams
1971 2 1 loss teams
1974 2 2 loss teams
1975 3 1 loss teams
1980 2 1 loss teams
1985 2 1 loss 1 tie teams
1990 2 two loss teams

Counting the 3 way ties for first, that is 21 times from 1933-1991 that they would need to use some form of tiebreak and unlike in divisions, there is not necessarily a head to head.

Those old SEC seasons aren’t a good measure. There were teams playing 4 or 5 conference games in a 10 team conference.

Wow, even back then SEC teams didn't want to play each other!

When I was little I remember my dad (who is also an alumnus of Illinois just like my mom) bought a coffee mug that celebrated them making the Rose Bowl. I don't believe he's ever used it for coffee and it's still in his house. That was in the days of the old ten team Big Ten before Penn State joined. You know what Illinois' record in the Big Ten was? 9-0! They played 9 conference games when they had 10 teams!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Big_T...all_season

They moved to 8 games in 1985.

Meanwhile the 1982 Georgia team that Penn State beat in the 1983 Sugar Bowl only played 6 (SIX) SEC games! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Georg...tball_team

At that point South Carolina was not an SEC team so they were one of UGa's five non conference games. Of course GaTech was another non conference game. Clemson was another one. BYU was. The fifth was Memphis (State) who was 1-10 that year so they were probably the cupcake/buy game back then.

To some extent the number of conference games declined when traditional rivals Tulane and Georgia Tech left the conference. At least one year Georgia Tech played 8 other SEC teams while in the conference.
01-28-2022 12:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 16,264
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1205
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #89
RE: Big Ten might scrap football divisions
…and because Georgia Tech refused to play the Mississippi schools during their time in the SEC, those schools in turn did not vote for GT’s readmittance in the late 60’s and then again in the late 70’s.

07-coffee3
01-28-2022 12:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #90
RE: Big Ten might scrap football divisions
(01-28-2022 10:09 AM)goofus Wrote:  
(01-28-2022 08:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-26-2022 04:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-26-2022 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-26-2022 03:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Looks like the Big Ten primarily wants to figure out whether no-divisions helps their chances in the next playoff format, and also whether to play 8 conference games instead of 9 to accommodate more games vs. Pac-12 and ACC teams.

IMO, the takeaways are:

1) The B1G expects there to *be* a new playoff format, meaning they don't expect anyone to carry their stonewalling as far as keeping the current 4-team CFP, at least not beyond 2026.

2) The B1G expects that a "top x champs" autobid format, not "P5 autobids", is likely to be the format. Because if it's "top x", then it behooves every conference to abandon divisions, to avoid some 7-5 team making the CCG and upsetting the standard-bearer, possibly knocking the conference out of the playoffs.

A 7-5 team winning a division is almost impossible, even more so with 9 conference games, because it would pretty much require a team that lost 3 non-conference games to win its division.

A 9-3 team winning a division and pulling off a CCG upset is very possible, though. And a no-division format only slightly reduces that possibility.
In 2021, the SEC was the only P conference in which both CCG teams had only one loss, and the other 4 still would have had at least one team in the CCG with multiple losses even if all of them, and not just the Big 12, used a no-division.

The no-division format helps a CCG upset loser's chances of getting an at large playoff place, in that the loss isn't as bad on paper if they can only lose to the best or 2nd best team in the conference, as opposed to being knocked off by the winner of an inferior division. But even then there's no guarantee that the CCG loss won't knock them out.

Not playing a CCG is the only sure way to solidify your top team's place in a playoff, and to not hurt the playoff chances of a potential CCG loser. But apparently there's no conference willing to leave CCG money on the table to do that.

That may be statistically true, but I think this notion is out there, and it will drive us towards no-divisions nonetheless if there is the belief that we are going to a "top x champs" autobid format.

E.g., in the recent AAC thread, Aresco was quoted as saying the AAC might not return to divisions even after it has 14 members, and he noted the risk of having a weak, poor-record division winner upsetting a division winner who is poised to make the playoffs. So the fear seems to be out there, and I would bet it is driving B1G thinking as well.

As for not playing a CCG, I don't think any conference is giving up their CCG for a playoff format. It's a showcase event for the conference beyond even the money.

Also, sure, if you have a team that would be a sure-fire playoff team going in to the CCG, then a CCG puts that at risk. But OTOH, if you don't have such a team, a CCG is a chance to propel one upwards in to the playoffs. E.g., if Baylor and TCU had played a CCG in 2014, the winner would likely have made the playoffs over Ohio State. Not having a CCG was a big handicap for the B12 that year.

Another example: this year, I believe that had the playoff choices been made before the CCGs, the Big 12 would have had no chance to put a team in the top 4. However, had Oklahoma State beaten Baylor in the CCG, I think they would have propelled past Cincy in to the final playoff spot. It didn't happen because Baylor won, but the CCG gave them a chance.

But all those examples become unimportant in an expanded playoff. In 2014 Baylor, TCU and OSU all would get into an expanded 8-team or 12-team playoff.

But I guess in an expanded playoff, I guess a CCG could now help a #13 team or lower get into the expanded playoffs. Its kinda a sliding scale as more teams are added to the playoffs.

If the Big 10, ACC and AAC are for no divisions, that will probably be enough to get it passed. Nobody is probably strongly opposed. But it is a bad idea and further reduces the value of a conference championship. Its pretty much ignored in basketball. Its also another example of money meaning everything. The sole purpose of allowing the extra game for the ccg was to provide for conferences with too many teams to play a true round robin.
(This post was last modified: 01-28-2022 01:17 PM by bullet.)
01-28-2022 01:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,795
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #91
RE: Big Ten might scrap football divisions
(01-28-2022 12:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  …and because Georgia Tech refused to play the Mississippi schools during their time in the SEC, those schools in turn did not vote for GT’s readmittance in the late 60’s and then again in the late 70’s.

07-coffee3

With all the infighting and the fact that scheduling conference games was for many years more of a suggestion, it’s a wonder the SEC held together.
01-28-2022 01:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #92
RE: Big Ten might scrap football divisions
(01-28-2022 01:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(01-28-2022 12:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  …and because Georgia Tech refused to play the Mississippi schools during their time in the SEC, those schools in turn did not vote for GT’s readmittance in the late 60’s and then again in the late 70’s.

07-coffee3

With all the infighting and the fact that scheduling conference games was for many years more of a suggestion, it’s a wonder the SEC held together.

It thrived in spite of Bobby Dodd and Bear Bryant's feud. You know why? Because the games fans cared about were played every year and for some schools those games were also against other regional schools not in the SEC. Auburn played Ga Tech annually until 1978 when Tech joined the ACC. It had been the oldest annual rivalry in the South 1892-1978. Auburn/Georgia is 1894 to Date. John Heisman coached at Auburn, Clemson, and Geogia Tech. He coached elsewhere like Virginia I believe, but the proximity of those 3 led to many games. LSU played A&M frequently in the early years and Ole Miss played then Memphis State, and Southern Miss was always a tough non-conference game for multiple SEC schools, and their fans traveled well and were well received.

Nobody down here complained, stadia were full and expanding and Sunday School discussion the next day was usually dominated by Saturday's action and absentees were usually the biggest braggards of the losers.

It's what we called, "Great Times!"

And by the way, I spent many a Saturday with an ear piece attached to a transistor radio while at a dove shoot. Prior to universal TV coverage Saturday afternoons were male dominated social events centered around corn and peanut fields or in deer stands. I miss that too!
(This post was last modified: 01-28-2022 03:38 PM by JRsec.)
01-28-2022 03:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 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.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.