(01-26-2022 04:19 PM)stever20 Wrote:  So this year looking at things- the only P5 conference that would have seen it's CCG matchup change is Big Ten. Instead of Michigan vs #13 Iowa, it'd have been Michigan vs #7 Ohio St.
looking at G5- AAC had 11 team 1 division only so they're obviously fine. SBC and CUSA would have had same matchup. Not as sure on MAC/MWC- it'd have gone to tiebreakers.
edit- so looking- MAC would have been 3 way tie with EMU, KSU, and NIU. they all split 1-1. Would have gone to deep tiebreakers
MWC- Fresno didn't play either Utah St or Air Force. So USU with their win would have gotten the spot based on beating Air Force. So same matchup as original.

So very possible only Big Ten would see matchup change this season.

Lol, obviously you don't follow the MAC! The last time Eastern Michigan won a MAC football title Ronald Reagan was president. Central Michigan, OTOH, has won seven MAC football titles, including finishing tied with NIU in the MAC West Division this past season at 6-2.

I am all for the rule change. Both the divisions and the divisonless formats have pros and cons. But let each conference choose the format.

I also wonder whether the potential rule change was disucssed with the P12 and the ACC. The ACC will definitely be on board. The P12 would agree if this opens up more Alliance games.

I've supported this change for the ACC for a while. It would allow more regular games against cross division opponents, adding more variety to the schedule and having more regular games against former conference foes like BC-Miami or Wake Forest-UNC. This would require a change of NCAA rules, but with the B1G apparently now considering it, such a change may get some traction.

In the context of a 12 team playoff, it dramatically reduces the chances that the conference champ will have a bad ranking. This would make the 6 highest ranked conference champ model much more palatable if a 5+1 format can't be negotiated. Even in a 5+1 model, though, it increases a conference's chances of getting a bye.

No question

(01-26-2022 04:43 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  They should scrap divisions, but keep a few games annually for rivalry purposes:

Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State and Purdue
Indiana: Purdue, Michigan State
Iowa: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska
Maryland: Penn State, Rutgers
Michigan: Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State
Michigan State: Indiana, Michigan, Penn State
Minnesota: Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Nebraska: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Northwestern: Illinois
Ohio State: Illinois, Michigan, Penn State
Penn State: Maryland, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers
Purdue: Illinois, Indiana
Rutgers: Maryland, Penn State
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska

Three permanent opponents?

Perfect

Duke: UNC, UVA, Maryland (or Rutgers)
UNC: UVA, Duke, Maryland
UVA: UNC, Duke, Maryland

Cue up the "Heels and Hoos will never play the Terps again" crowd ...

(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.

You guys are both wrong. They will have a championship game and still decide it on the field. If you think at the end of the regular season three teams could represent the conference, then you’re doing something wrong.

(01-26-2022 07:12 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I also wonder whether the potential rule change was disucssed with the P12 and the ACC. The ACC will definitely be on board. The P12 would agree if this opens up more Alliance games.

I don't think *everyone* in any of those 3 conferences wants to have to play a random team in one of the other leagues every year. The priorities should be (a) games involving brand names, and (b) matchups that have some appeal for geographical or historical reasons -- e.g. Colorado-Nebraska or Pitt-Penn State. IMO, they should work to schedule games in those categories, and then just let teams schedule other games vs. someone in one of the other two conferences if they want to.

(01-26-2022 07:16 PM)orangefan Wrote:  I've supported this change for the ACC for a while. It would allow more regular games against cross division opponents, adding more variety to the schedule and having more regular games against former conference foes like BC-Miami or Wake Forest-UNC. This would require a change of NCAA rules, but with the B1G apparently now considering it, such a change may get some traction.

Same here. I would love to have the ACC move to a 3-5-5 scheduling format.

I believe the ACC's current scheduling rotation wraps up in 2024. At a minimum, it would be nice to have this in place by the following season.

(01-26-2022 05:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 04:43 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  They should scrap divisions, but keep a few games annually for rivalry purposes:

Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State and Purdue
Indiana: Purdue, Michigan State
Iowa: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska
Maryland: Penn State, Rutgers
Michigan: Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State
Michigan State: Indiana, Michigan, Penn State
Minnesota: Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Nebraska: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Northwestern: Illinois
Ohio State: Illinois, Michigan, Penn State
Penn State: Maryland, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers
Purdue: Illinois, Indiana
Rutgers: Maryland, Penn State
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska

Northwestern is a flexible rivalry game, especially if the game is in Evanston, since so many B1G alumni live in the Chicago-area. All other games can easily be interchangeable based on projections.

I think the Big Ten would make everything even with all schools getting 3 permanent annual rivals. That allows each school to play everyone else either every other year or 2 years on/2 years off. I can't see the Big Ten having some schools with 4 rivals and others with just 1.

Also, I see it as being much simpler.

Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska would be virtually guaranteed to stick together as a pod.

Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue and Indiana also makes sense as a pod.

From there, the Eastern half of the league splits into 3-team mini-pods with one cross-pod rival each.

Ohio State, Michigan and Michigan State are mini-pod 1.

Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland are mini-pod 2.

Ohio State-Penn State, Michigan-Rutgers and Michigan State-Maryland are the cross-pod rivals.

That gives everyone 3 annual rivals each in a logical geographic distribution with all of the major rivalries covered.

Works from geography, but I don't think best way. I cant see them locking three and leaving things like the Little Brown Jug out. I'd do something like this:

Nebraska: Iowa, Wisconsin, (Rutgers)
Iowa: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska
Minnesota: Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan
Wisconsin: Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota
Illinois: Northwestern, Purdue, Ohio State
Northwestern: Illinois, Indiana, (Michigan State)
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, (Maryland)
Indiana: Purdue, Northwestern, Michigan State
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota,
Michigan State: Michigan, Indiana, (Northwestern)
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois
Penn State: Ohio State, Rutgers, Maryland
Rutgers: Maryland, Penn State, (Nebraska)
Maryland: Rutgers, Penn State, (Purdue)

This would really only leave out Penn State/Michigan State and Nebraska/Minnesota as far as games with traditional or regional appeal, and would only leave a few random crisscross games (the ones in parentheses which you could alter). edit: maybe better with Michigan State and Nebraska locked

(01-26-2022 09:04 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 05:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 04:43 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  They should scrap divisions, but keep a few games annually for rivalry purposes:

Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State and Purdue
Indiana: Purdue, Michigan State
Iowa: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska
Maryland: Penn State, Rutgers
Michigan: Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State
Michigan State: Indiana, Michigan, Penn State
Minnesota: Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Nebraska: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Northwestern: Illinois
Ohio State: Illinois, Michigan, Penn State
Penn State: Maryland, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers
Purdue: Illinois, Indiana
Rutgers: Maryland, Penn State
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska

Northwestern is a flexible rivalry game, especially if the game is in Evanston, since so many B1G alumni live in the Chicago-area. All other games can easily be interchangeable based on projections.

I think the Big Ten would make everything even with all schools getting 3 permanent annual rivals. That allows each school to play everyone else either every other year or 2 years on/2 years off. I can't see the Big Ten having some schools with 4 rivals and others with just 1.

Also, I see it as being much simpler.

Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska would be virtually guaranteed to stick together as a pod.

Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue and Indiana also makes sense as a pod.

From there, the Eastern half of the league splits into 3-team mini-pods with one cross-pod rival each.

Ohio State, Michigan and Michigan State are mini-pod 1.

Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland are mini-pod 2.

Ohio State-Penn State, Michigan-Rutgers and Michigan State-Maryland are the cross-pod rivals.

That gives everyone 3 annual rivals each in a logical geographic distribution with all of the major rivalries covered.

Works from geography, but I don't think best way. I cant see them locking three and leaving things like the Little Brown Jug out. I'd do something like this:

Nebraska: Iowa, Wisconsin, (Rutgers)
Iowa: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska
Minnesota: Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan
Wisconsin: Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota
Illinois: Northwestern, Purdue, Ohio State
Northwestern: Illinois, Indiana, (Michigan State)
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, (Maryland)
Indiana: Purdue, Northwestern, Michigan State
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota,
Michigan State: Michigan, Indiana, (Northwestern)
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois
Penn State: Ohio State, Rutgers, Maryland
Rutgers: Maryland, Penn State, (Nebraska)
Maryland: Rutgers, Penn State, (Purdue)

This would really only leave out Penn State/Michigan State and Nebraska/Minnesota as far as games with traditional or regional appeal, and would only leave a few random crisscross games (the ones in parentheses which you could alter). edit: maybe better with Michigan State and Nebraska locked

Yep! When I played around with it for the SEC a core of 5 protected with 4 rotating worked best for the old core 10. At 8 conference games however, you can't have 5 core games. Too much imbalance.

I imagine the SEC will move to 9 conference games.

(01-26-2022 06:47 PM)Crayton Wrote:  I once saw an idea that conferences could do divisionless so long as it was impossible for more than 2 teams to go undefeated. This would make divisions mostly necessary for conferences with more than 12 teams.

Ohio St. and Iowa both went 8-0 in 2002 in the 11 team Big 10.

(01-26-2022 07:55 PM)esayem 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.

You guys are both wrong. They will have a championship game and still decide it on the field. If you think at the end of the regular season three teams could represent the conference, then you’re doing something wrong.

But who gets to play for the championship will be partly dependent on random scheduling and tiebreaks. Not much different than the 4 team CFP.

(01-26-2022 07:55 PM)esayem 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.

You guys are both wrong. They will have a championship game and still decide it on the field. If you think at the end of the regular season three teams could represent the conference, then you’re doing something wrong.

How are you going to decide it on the field when you have 4 schools go 7-2 in conference play and they didn’t all play each other?

Riddle me that because since the advent of CCGs and divisions there are a wealth of example of awkward end of season standings and now with conferences getting even bigger the chances of teams tying and not playing are even greater.

(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.

So then:

A) The PAC-12 goes to 8 games with 5 annual opponents and 3 of the other 6 every other year.

B) Alliance schools will agree that they each must play a minimum of 10 P4 games a season.

C) Games against Notre Dame will count as an “Alliance” matchup for the 5 ACC teams a year, Southern Cal, Stanford, and any B1G team that plays the Irish. As long as they continue to play Notre Dame annually, Stanford and SC will only have to schedule 1 other game against a B1G or ACC team to meet the 10 P4 minimum. In years where they play Notre Dame, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Louisville, and Florida State will satisfy the minimum of 10 P4 games by playing their end of season SEC rivalries.

D) The SEC will go to 9 games, with 3 permanent opponents and 6 of the remaining 12 every other year. Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and Kentucky will play at least 10 P4 games a season. ACC schools will continue to schedule games with SEC opponents whenever feasible (Clemson vs. Georgia, Auburn and A&M, South Carolina vs. NC State & UNC, Wake vs. Vandy, Virginia Tech vs. Tennessee, etc.). The SEC schools will round out the schedules with the SoCon Invitational Weekend and/or games against various Big XII, Sun Belt & C-USA schools.

(01-26-2022 10:53 PM)CarlSmithCenter 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.

So then:

A) The PAC-12 goes to 8 games with 5 annual opponents and 3 of the other 6 every other year.

B) Alliance schools will agree that they each must play a minimum of 10 P4 games a season.

C) Games against Notre Dame will count as an “Alliance” matchup for the 5 ACC teams a year, Southern Cal, Stanford, and any B1G team that plays the Irish. As long as they continue to play Notre Dame annually, Stanford and SC will only have to schedule 1 other game against a B1G or ACC team to meet the 10 P4 minimum. In years where they play Notre Dame, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Louisville, and Florida State will satisfy the minimum of 10 P4 games by playing their end of season SEC rivalries.

D) The SEC will go to 9 games, with 3 permanent opponents and 6 of the remaining 12 every other year. Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and Kentucky will play at least 10 P4 games a season. ACC schools will continue to schedule games with SEC opponents whenever feasible (Clemson vs. Georgia, Auburn and A&M, South Carolina vs. NC State & UNC, Wake vs. Vandy, Virginia Tech vs. Tennessee, etc.). The SEC schools will round out the schedules with the SoCon Invitational Weekend and/or games against various Big XII, Sun Belt & C-USA schools.

UCLA's shenanigans make me wonder how many California schools will play a game in the Southeast during Hurricane Season? Seems like anything inclement would scare them.

(01-26-2022 10:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 07:55 PM)esayem 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.

You guys are both wrong. They will have a championship game and still decide it on the field. If you think at the end of the regular season three teams could represent the conference, then you’re doing something wrong.

How are you going to decide it on the field when you have 4 schools go 7-2 in conference play and they didn’t all play each other?

Riddle me that because since the advent of CCGs and divisions there are a wealth of example of awkward end of season standings and now with conferences getting even bigger the chances of teams tying and not playing are even greater.

That's what tie breakers are for and the SEC, Southern Conference, and B10 crowned champions for years without everyone meeting. Someone might get screwed so what.

1965 Southeastern Conference football standings
vte Conf Overall
Team W L T W L T
No. 1 Alabama $ 6 – 1 – 1 9 – 1 – 1
Auburn 4 – 1 – 1 5 – 5 – 1
Florida 4 – 2 – 0 7 – 4 – 0
No. 7 Tennessee 2 – 1 – 2 8 – 1 – 2
Ole Miss 5 – 3 – 0 7 – 4 – 0
No. 8 LSU 3 – 3 – 0 8 – 3 – 0
Kentucky 3 – 3 – 0 6 – 4 – 0
Georgia 2 – 3 – 0 6 – 4 – 0
Vanderbilt 1 – 5 – 0 2 – 7 – 1
Tulane 1 – 5 – 0 2 – 8 – 0
Mississippi State 1 – 5 – 0 4 – 6 – 0

Some played 5 conference games, Bama played 8.

You can come up with a rule to pick from Auburn, Florida, and Tennessee in the above.

(01-27-2022 12:27 AM)Statefan Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 10:53 PM)CarlSmithCenter 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.

So then:

A) The PAC-12 goes to 8 games with 5 annual opponents and 3 of the other 6 every other year.

B) Alliance schools will agree that they each must play a minimum of 10 P4 games a season.

C) Games against Notre Dame will count as an “Alliance” matchup for the 5 ACC teams a year, Southern Cal, Stanford, and any B1G team that plays the Irish. As long as they continue to play Notre Dame annually, Stanford and SC will only have to schedule 1 other game against a B1G or ACC team to meet the 10 P4 minimum. In years where they play Notre Dame, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Louisville, and Florida State will satisfy the minimum of 10 P4 games by playing their end of season SEC rivalries.

D) The SEC will go to 9 games, with 3 permanent opponents and 6 of the remaining 12 every other year. Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and Kentucky will play at least 10 P4 games a season. ACC schools will continue to schedule games with SEC opponents whenever feasible (Clemson vs. Georgia, Auburn and A&M, South Carolina vs. NC State & UNC, Wake vs. Vandy, Virginia Tech vs. Tennessee, etc.). The SEC schools will round out the schedules with the SoCon Invitational Weekend and/or games against various Big XII, Sun Belt & C-USA schools.

UCLA's shenanigans make me wonder how many California schools will play a game in the Southeast during Hurricane Season? Seems like anything inclement would scare them.

Well, for your Hurricane hypothetical — so UCLA avoids the ignominy of losing a hurricane makeup game to Miami in December to cost it a title shot, let’s take the Southeastern-most teams out of the equation. So, no Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson, Duke, Carolina, Wake, or State. FSU, GT, and Clemson, plus Louisville, also already have limited availability because of their SEC end-of-year rivalries.

So say the Bruins have a pool of non-conference Alliance matchups where they cycle through 1 or 2 of the following 20 schools a year OOC: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Notre Dame, Purdue, Indiana, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse, BC, Pitt, Virginia, and Virginia Tech. More realistically, given that hurricane games are made up all the time, it’s likely UCLA’s 2 Alliance games would primarily come from the 25 team pool of Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Notre Dame, Purdue, Indiana, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse, BC, Pitt, Virginia, Virginia Tech, State, Wake, Duke, Carolina, and Miami, with less frequent tilts against the other 4 in the Alliance, Clemson, FSU, GT, and Louisville. Schedule UCLA’s away games in hurricane prone Southeastern states in mid to late October or early November if you have to.

8 PAC games plus + Alliance matchups would be preferable to UCLA’s exclusively G5/FCS OOC slates in ‘22 (Bowling Green, South Alabama, Alabama State) and in ‘23 (Coastal Carolina, @ SDSU, NC Central).

Divisionless football seems unbalanced and unfair.