bullet
Legend
Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
|
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.)
|
|