(05-04-2022 11:28 PM)space orange Wrote:  The benefit of getting rid of divisions is to send the 2 best teams to the CCG. It's not guaranteed that every year strength will be evenly divided between the 2 divisions. So your CCG might be the #1 team vs the #4 team in the conference. You want the strongest 2 in there to boost your NY6/CFP prospects.

As for the concerns about ruining regional ties, you don't have to do that. You can keep regional ties AND remove divisions. You can actually still have each team play the 6 teams that would be in their division plus 2-3 cross division games. It's just that now there's no guarantee for 1 west and 1 east team. You could have a Marshall vs App State rematch in the SBCCG. Essentially you'd have shadow divisions used for scheduling but not for the title game matchup.

That would work, but it does take away the opportunity to win divisional championships and the bragging rights that gives teams. Twice as many teams get some kind of Championship with Divisions and they can brag about that to recruits, post banners, etc. It's not as big as winning the Conference Championship, but it's a building block.

No, no, no! I think this set up is perfect for all teams concerned.

Now, I would like to see the SBC go to 9 conference games, with 6 divisional and 3 cross divisional games to strengthen, even further, the cohesion of the conference. That still leaves 3 OOC, and to maintain strength of schedule arguments, eliminate the FCS game (not forced, but recommended) and schedule the 2 best G5 games you can get and best P5 match up possible.

(05-04-2022 08:12 PM)High Country Student Wrote:  I need protected games against Marshall, JMU, ODU, Coastal, Georgia State and Georgia Southern. Deal? In all seriousness call it crazy but could a conference drop divisions to allow the top two teams to play in the championship but schedule like they still have the divisions with you playing the same teams every year that you’d play in your “division” and rotating the remaining conference games annually among team from the other “division.” That seems like the biggest win.

I agree.

I like the division setup right now, but what could hurt the conference is if one division is significantly better than the other. For example, if the SBC East is as good as people think it will be and the SBC West lags behind, then you could end up with the #1 conference team versus the #4 conference team in the championship game. Another issue could be that the SBC East teams beat each other up so much that they take themselves out of contention for a NY6 bowl game in that scenario.

(05-05-2022 07:50 AM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  No, no, no! I think this set up is perfect for all teams concerned.

Now, I would like to see the SBC go to 9 conference games, with 6 divisional and 3 cross divisional games to strengthen, even further, the cohesion of the conference. That still leaves 3 OOC, and to maintain strength of schedule arguments, eliminate the FCS game (not forced, but recommended) and schedule the 2 best G5 games you can get and best P5 match up possible.

Nah, I'm good with 8 conference games (four home conf games), and therefore 4 nonconference games, with one being an FCS game.

It comes down to having 6 home games a year.

App is going to try to stop having "bodybag" games where they go get a huge paycheck from a team loaded with five star players that will never play in Boone.

Instead, the formula is hoped to be something like this:

One home game/ year vs. FCS.

One home game vs. either a P5 (like Wake or UNC) that we have 1-for-1 or 2-for-1 or a G5 (like Liberty or Toledo).

One road game vs. a G5 or P5 as described above.

Another road game vs. another G5 or a P5 as described above.

The FCS game allows App the cushion it needs for getting 2-for-1's with P5's.
-----
With nine conference games, half the years would have five conference road games. That would mean App would have to find two nonconference home games, with neither being an FCS. How is App supposed to be able to expect a P5 and a G5, or two G5's, to come to Boone in the same year with only one road trip? It just doesn't add up. It makes scheduling even more complicated than it already is.

The status quo is working extremely well for App. We are getting 6 games in Boone every year. Last year we had a seventh "home" game in Charlotte vs. ECU. This year we host UNC.

In the SBC, the divisions are what make it so great. With all the respect in the world for the western teams, I want to play the east. Im sure the west wants to play the west. Rivalries and travel were two huge factors that made coming to the Belt such a good move. The two divisions make that possible. I also like the idea of "division champs" as another thing to play for. And if the two best teams wind up playing for the division championship instead, so be it. Its not like the bowl destination is much better for the champ (unless its the NY6, which wont happen unless the team is undefeated anyway). Now, if the NCAA ever allows access to the playoff for all 10 champions, it will be time to consider a change. But unless that happens, I like it as it is.

(05-05-2022 08:09 AM)bridgeforthduke Wrote:  

(05-04-2022 08:12 PM)High Country Student Wrote:  I need protected games against Marshall, JMU, ODU, Coastal, Georgia State and Georgia Southern. Deal? In all seriousness call it crazy but could a conference drop divisions to allow the top two teams to play in the championship but schedule like they still have the divisions with you playing the same teams every year that you’d play in your “division” and rotating the remaining conference games annually among team from the other “division.” That seems like the biggest win.

I agree.

I like the division setup right now, but what could hurt the conference is if one division is significantly better than the other. For example, if the SBC East is as good as people think it will be and the SBC West lags behind, then you could end up with the #1 conference team versus the #4 conference team in the championship game. Another issue could be that the SBC East teams beat each other up so much that they take themselves out of contention for a NY6 bowl game in that scenario.

This is a concern, but on the other hand, that strength of schedule could put the SB champ in over another undefeated G5 conference champ. If the SBeast can prove itself the best division in the G5, then as long as we have an undefeated representative (or maybe even a 1 loss team) we should be in contention for the NY6 frequently.

(05-05-2022 07:33 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  I don’t think it would work well to go divisionless and then play still play what would be division teams.

Hypothetical: App State is 7-1 and Georgia Southern is 6-2. In the “West” Arkansas State has the best record at 5-3. App State vs Georgia Southern in the championship seems palatable.

Hypothetical: Coastal Carolina is 7-1 and Georgia State is 6-2. In the “West” ULM has the best record at 7-1. Even if ULM has a much weaker schedule, having a championship game between Coastal Carolina and Georgia State that have better “rankings” seems wrong.

Hypothetical: Texas State is 8-0. Louisiana is 7-1. JMU is 7-1. Marshall is 7-1. Texas State beat Louisiana head to head. JMU lost to Louisiana. Marshall lost to JMU. The “rankings” have the order of “best team” at JMU, Louisiana, Marshall, then Texas State. Who plays in the championship? Excluding Texas State in any scenario seems wrong.

In the end if you went divisionless, you CAN’T punish a school for then having a worse overall ranking, in my opinion. On the field results means something.

I think in your second hypothetical, you're confused about what would happen. Conference record takes higher priority than CFP ranking. CFP ranking is normally just used by conferences as a tie breaker in case of equal records, no head to head match, equal records against common opponents, etc. In that second example your CCG would be 7-1 Coastal and 7-1 ULM.

Same thing again for hypothetical #3. Rankings are only used for ties, so it would be 8-0 Texas State versus whatever the conference tiebreaker rules say is the best of the 7-1 teams, which in your example would be JMU.

(05-05-2022 07:33 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  I don’t think it would work well to go divisionless and then play still play what would be division teams.

Hypothetical: App State is 7-1 and Georgia Southern is 6-2. In the “West” Arkansas State has the best record at 5-3. App State vs Georgia Southern in the championship seems palatable.

Hypothetical: Coastal Carolina is 7-1 and Georgia State is 6-2. In the “West” ULM has the best record at 7-1. Even if ULM has a much weaker schedule, having a championship game between Coastal Carolina and Georgia State that have better “rankings” seems wrong.

Hypothetical: Texas State is 8-0. Louisiana is 7-1. JMU is 7-1. Marshall is 7-1. Texas State beat Louisiana head to head. JMU lost to Louisiana. Marshall lost to JMU. The “rankings” have the order of “best team” at JMU, Louisiana, Marshall, then Texas State. Who plays in the championship? Excluding Texas State in any scenario seems wrong.

In the end if you went divisionless, you CAN’T punish a school for then having a worse overall ranking, in my opinion. On the field results means something.

To this end we need to do something about the conference championship game. It's entirely possible it's always played in the West because one team has a good year while the teams in the East have beaten up on one another. You have a 7-1 West team hosting because the top East team is 6-2.

(05-05-2022 08:59 AM)space orange Wrote:  

(05-05-2022 07:33 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  I don’t think it would work well to go divisionless and then play still play what would be division teams.

Hypothetical: App State is 7-1 and Georgia Southern is 6-2. In the “West” Arkansas State has the best record at 5-3. App State vs Georgia Southern in the championship seems palatable.

Hypothetical: Coastal Carolina is 7-1 and Georgia State is 6-2. In the “West” ULM has the best record at 7-1. Even if ULM has a much weaker schedule, having a championship game between Coastal Carolina and Georgia State that have better “rankings” seems wrong.

Hypothetical: Texas State is 8-0. Louisiana is 7-1. JMU is 7-1. Marshall is 7-1. Texas State beat Louisiana head to head. JMU lost to Louisiana. Marshall lost to JMU. The “rankings” have the order of “best team” at JMU, Louisiana, Marshall, then Texas State. Who plays in the championship? Excluding Texas State in any scenario seems wrong.

In the end if you went divisionless, you CAN’T punish a school for then having a worse overall ranking, in my opinion. On the field results means something.

I think in your second hypothetical, you're confused about what would happen. Conference record takes higher priority than CFP ranking. CFP ranking is normally just used by conferences as a tie breaker in case of equal records, no head to head match, equal records against common opponents, etc. In that second example your CCG would be 7-1 Coastal and 7-1 ULM.

Same thing again for hypothetical #3. Rankings are only used for ties, so it would be 8-0 Texas State versus whatever the conference tiebreaker rules say is the best of the 7-1 teams, which in your example would be JMU.

While not quoting anyone, I was addressing a post that mentioned something about picking based on team ranking. I was just throwing out different scenarios to that end.

Right now it seems the east has better teams. You don't really think it will always be that way.

(05-05-2022 12:17 AM)HarborPointe Wrote:  So then what happens when your undefeated #1 loses the rematch with its 2nd-seed “shadow division” rival instead of beating the 3rd best team?

Seriously, folks, how many times in the BCS/CFP era has a G5 team lost the bid solely because their CG opponent wasn’t rated high enough?

It adds risk sure, but it also makes your worst case scenario better. If you're trying to compete for a NY6 bowl, obviously your best shot is your #1 team winning out. But what's your next best shot? The 3rd best team still has a possibility of beating that 1 seed, except their resume won't be as strong as the 2nd seed for still trying to get that NY6 spot.

With the AAC being weakened, it'll be wide open every year between the AAC, MWC, and SBC competing for the G5 NY6. Gotta do what you can to boost your conferences chances. The P5 are considering this for the same reason, except for the playoffs instead.

(05-04-2022 08:12 PM)High Country Student Wrote:  I need protected games against Marshall, JMU, ODU, Coastal, Georgia State and Georgia Southern. Deal? In all seriousness call it crazy but could a conference drop divisions to allow the top two teams to play in the championship but schedule like they still have the divisions with you playing the same teams every year that you’d play in your “division” and rotating the remaining conference games annually among team from the other “division.” That seems like the biggest win.

That’s what I was thinking as well. Schedule divisionally but take the top two regardless of division.

I kind of like the idea of a rematch in the CCG being less likely than it is now. Two of the three have been rematches so far, and it is possible 2020 would have been had Covid not messed everything up. Keeping divisions and only playing two from the other side should create more unknowns going into the CCG which to me should equal more interest.

The current setup should work well as long as we play two different cross divisional opponents every year.

(05-05-2022 09:15 AM)space orange Wrote:  

(05-05-2022 12:17 AM)HarborPointe Wrote:  So then what happens when your undefeated #1 loses the rematch with its 2nd-seed “shadow division” rival instead of beating the 3rd best team?

Seriously, folks, how many times in the BCS/CFP era has a G5 team lost the bid solely because their CG opponent wasn’t rated high enough?

It adds risk sure, but it also makes your worst case scenario better. If you're trying to compete for a NY6 bowl, obviously your best shot is your #1 team winning out. But what's your next best shot? The 3rd best team still has a possibility of beating that 1 seed, except their resume won't be as strong as the 2nd seed for still trying to get that NY6 spot.

With the AAC being weakened, it'll be wide open every year between the AAC, MWC, and SBC competing for the G5 NY6. Gotta do what you can to boost your conferences chances. The P5 are considering this for the same reason, except for the playoffs instead.

Again, how many times in the history of the G5 autobid has the strength of a CGG opponent been a factor in who won it or even come close to being a factor in who won it? We can make up applicable “what if?”s until the cows come home, but realistically, how often would one come to pass, once every 30 years, maybe?

I can tape cardboard wings to my arms to “boost my chances” of flying, but I’m still not leaving the ground unless a tornado happens to come by. Abandoning good sense for the sake of a few hundredths of a point in a ranking that may or may not ever pay off isn’t a good trade.

We’ve been through this sort of thing with CUSA basketball’s flex schedule, which is just a pain in the a** for everybody and has yet to accomplish a thing.

(05-05-2022 07:33 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  I don’t think it would work well to go divisionless and then play still play what would be division teams.

Hypothetical: App State is 7-1 and Georgia Southern is 6-2. In the “West” Arkansas State has the best record at 5-3. App State vs Georgia Southern in the championship seems palatable.

Hypothetical: Coastal Carolina is 7-1 and Georgia State is 6-2. In the “West” ULM has the best record at 7-1. Even if ULM has a much weaker schedule, having a championship game between Coastal Carolina and Georgia State that have better “rankings” seems wrong.

Hypothetical: Texas State is 8-0. Louisiana is 7-1. JMU is 7-1. Marshall is 7-1. Texas State beat Louisiana head to head. JMU lost to Louisiana. Marshall lost to JMU. The “rankings” have the order of “best team” at JMU, Louisiana, Marshall, then Texas State. Who plays in the championship? Excluding Texas State in any scenario seems wrong.

In the end if you went divisionless, you CAN’T punish a school for then having a worse overall ranking, in my opinion. On the field results means something.

CCG wouldn’t be selected by ranking. It would still be the two teams with the best conference record. In scenario #2, Coastal would play ULM. In scenario #3 it would be TxSt and some kind of tie break scenario that may include rankings.

In the end, your best conference teams get an opportunity to play. Remember years ago when UCLA made the PAC12 championship game with only 6 total wins. This would prevent that type of thing from happening.

Does anyone remember 2018 in baseball where Louisiana got the #2 seed in the tournament in spite of 4 of the 6 teams in the east having better conference records? The issue I have with divisions is that they aren't always balanced competitively.

The divisions will always functionally exist for the purposes of scheduling (which is perfectly sensible) but I wouldn't mind if the way we chose teams for the CCG was based on national ranking and not being a division champ.

Keep the divisions and work on building the matchups and rivalries. Worry about what the conference can control. Do that and the bowls will be coming for the SBC.

Some thoughts reading this thread:

1) If the Sun Belt takes advantage of this, the schedule will probably still include East and West round-robins; there is even a slight possibility they will continue to publish standings in two divisions to facilitate tie-breakers. They 'may' tweak things by adding USM-MU in exchange for Troy-GaSt or some sort.

2) Whether the #1 plays the #4 or #2 team in the conference makes a marginal difference in whether the #1 team will get the NY6 spot. BUT, while the #4 team will likely still be unranked after upsetting #1, the #2 teams 'could' vault into the NY6 after such a strong upset. The Sun Belt will consider this.

(05-05-2022 10:45 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Does anyone remember 2018 in baseball where Louisiana got the #2 seed in the tournament in spite of 4 of the 6 teams in the east having better conference records? The issue I have with divisions is that they aren't always balanced competitively.

The divisions will always functionally exist for the purposes of scheduling (which is perfectly sensible) but I wouldn't mind if the way we chose teams for the CCG was based on national ranking and not being a division champ.

Difference is that we pretty much stopped using divisions in baseball after that happened.

We are SEClite we do what they do...divisions it is until they move to 16 teams with pods then we do the same.