Should the MAC add Delaware and UMass, will divisions be a thing of the past in football?

(11-02-2023 06:20 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  Should the MAC add Delaware and UMass, will divisions be a thing of the past in football?

I would hope not. Divisions are great.

My assumption is that Bowling Green would move to the West. I'd rather stay in the East and play an Ohio-heavy schedule, but they had us over there once before when Central Florida and Temple were football affiliates.

(11-03-2023 10:29 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(11-02-2023 06:20 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  Should the MAC add Delaware and UMass, will divisions be a thing of the past in football?

I would hope not. Divisions are great.

My assumption is that Bowling Green would move to the West. I'd rather stay in the East and play an Ohio-heavy schedule, but they had us over there once before when Central Florida and Temple were football affiliates.

Correct, the MAC would retain divisions if moving to 14 members, but if UConn/UMass or UMass/Delaware specifically were added, it would facilitate moving BGSU to the MAC West Division.

(11-03-2023 10:29 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(11-02-2023 06:20 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  Should the MAC add Delaware and UMass, will divisions be a thing of the past in football?

I would hope not. Divisions are great.

My assumption is that Bowling Green would move to the West. I'd rather stay in the East and play an Ohio-heavy schedule, but they had us over there once before when Central Florida and Temple were football affiliates.

Does every team like the current setup?

I’m surprised that they haven’t been scrapped already. The new CFP heavily incentivizes every conference (from top to bottom) to put their two best teams in the CCG.

(11-03-2023 12:00 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’m surprised that they haven’t been scrapped already. The new CFP heavily incentivizes every conference (from top to bottom) to put their two best teams in the CCG.

I'm curious why you state this. At least for the top conferences, doesn't it make more sense to get that random 8-4 team in the conference championship game?

In the 12 team playoff, if say a 9-3 Iowa beat an 12-0 Ohio State, that puts Iowa into the playoff as a top X (?) conference champion, but Ohio State and Michigan are likely still in the playoff, and Penn State is the "first one out" but could easily move up. In that scenario, Iowa might not get a bye, but they would be in as the 5 seed (below Georgia, FSU, Washington, and Texas if the current CFP holds elsewhere).

1 Georgia vs 8/9 Michigan/Oregon
2 FSU vs 7/10 Ohio State/Alabama
3Washington vs 6/11 Tulane/OK
4 Texas vs 5 Iowa/12 Penn State


Without divisions, Iowa isn't in at all, but Penn State is (Ohio State, Georgia, FSU, Washington, Texas are the top 5), Michigan is one of the wild cards, but because Ohio State is now a conference champ, there is one more wild care spot for Penn State.

1 Ohio State v 8/9 Oregon/Alabama
2 Georgia v 7/10 Michigan/OK
3 FSU v 6Tulane/11 Ole Miss
4 Washington v 5 Texas/12 Penn State


In this scenario, divisions could actually help the Big 10 get a fourth team in.

It does make sense for the lower conferences to get their top 2 in no matter what.

I hope not. I like divisions. Gives fans something to cheer for if they’re not a top 2 team. No divisions just limits the season to the top 2 teams & is usually decided by September.

(11-03-2023 12:18 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(11-03-2023 12:00 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’m surprised that they haven’t been scrapped already. The new CFP heavily incentivizes every conference (from top to bottom) to put their two best teams in the CCG.

I'm curious why you state this. At least for the top conferences, doesn't it make more sense to get that random 8-4 team in the conference championship game?

In the 12 team playoff, if say a 9-3 Iowa beat an 12-0 Ohio State, that puts Iowa into the playoff as a top X (?) conference champion, but Ohio State and Michigan are likely still in the playoff, and Penn State is the "first one out" but could easily move up. In that scenario, Iowa might not get a bye, but they would be in as the 5 seed (below Georgia, FSU, Washington, and Texas if the current CFP holds elsewhere).

1 Georgia vs 8/9 Michigan/Oregon
2 FSU vs 7/10 Ohio State/Alabama
3Washington vs 6/11 Tulane/OK
4 Texas vs 5 Iowa/12 Penn State


Without divisions, Iowa isn't in at all, but Penn State is (Ohio State, Georgia, FSU, Washington, Texas are the top 5), Michigan is one of the wild cards, but because Ohio State is now a conference champ, there is one more wild care spot for Penn State.

1 Ohio State v 8/9 Oregon/Alabama
2 Georgia v 7/10 Michigan/OK
3 FSU v 6Tulane/11 Ole Miss
4 Washington v 5 Texas/12 Penn State


In this scenario, divisions could actually help the Big 10 get a fourth team in.

It does make sense for the lower conferences to get their top 2 in no matter what.

Decision-making in college sports generally goes toward mitigating or eliminating downside risk as opposed maximizing upside opportunity.

The top 4 conference bye is critical (particularly if this is the way to ensure, say, the Big Ten champ goes to the Rose Bowl) and no power league wants to take *any* chance that an 8-4 team wins a CCG upset and then a G5 champ has a higher ranking and gets the bye instead (even if it might mean that same league gains an overall at-large bid).

I’ve long said that the top 4 conference champ bye is an underrated aspect of the new system. We get focused a lot on the “in or out” binary of whether a team makes the playoff or not, but as we’ve seen with the NFL, NBA and more recently MLB, the dynamics of which games matter in the regular season change a ton when there are playoff byes at stake. (For the NBA, I’m referring to being top 6 in each conference going directly to the playoffs as opposed to being in the play-in round in places 7-10.)

Similarly, the bye changes the stakes of the CCGs for the power leagues drastically - they want that set up where whoever wins is effectively guaranteed to get a first round bye. They can’t let in a lower tier division winner like they’ve done in the past.

I think all of the power leagues have internalized what I’ve stated above, which is why they’re all scrapping divisions.

(11-03-2023 01:07 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-03-2023 12:18 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(11-03-2023 12:00 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’m surprised that they haven’t been scrapped already. The new CFP heavily incentivizes every conference (from top to bottom) to put their two best teams in the CCG.

I'm curious why you state this. At least for the top conferences, doesn't it make more sense to get that random 8-4 team in the conference championship game?

In the 12 team playoff, if say a 9-3 Iowa beat an 12-0 Ohio State, that puts Iowa into the playoff as a top X (?) conference champion, but Ohio State and Michigan are likely still in the playoff, and Penn State is the "first one out" but could easily move up. In that scenario, Iowa might not get a bye, but they would be in as the 5 seed (below Georgia, FSU, Washington, and Texas if the current CFP holds elsewhere).

1 Georgia vs 8/9 Michigan/Oregon
2 FSU vs 7/10 Ohio State/Alabama
3Washington vs 6/11 Tulane/OK
4 Texas vs 5 Iowa/12 Penn State


Without divisions, Iowa isn't in at all, but Penn State is (Ohio State, Georgia, FSU, Washington, Texas are the top 5), Michigan is one of the wild cards, but because Ohio State is now a conference champ, there is one more wild care spot for Penn State.

1 Ohio State v 8/9 Oregon/Alabama
2 Georgia v 7/10 Michigan/OK
3 FSU v 6Tulane/11 Ole Miss
4 Washington v 5 Texas/12 Penn State


In this scenario, divisions could actually help the Big 10 get a fourth team in.

It does make sense for the lower conferences to get their top 2 in no matter what.

Decision-making in college sports generally goes toward mitigating or eliminating downside risk as opposed maximizing upside opportunity.

The top 4 conference bye is critical (particularly if this is the way to ensure, say, the Big Ten champ goes to the Rose Bowl) and no power league wants to take *any* chance that an 8-4 team wins a CCG upset and then a G5 champ has a higher ranking and gets the bye instead (even if it might mean that same league gains an overall at-large bid).

I’ve long said that the top 4 conference champ bye is an underrated aspect of the new system. We get focused a lot on the “in or out” binary of whether a team makes the playoff or not, but as we’ve seen with the NFL, NBA and more recently MLB, the dynamics of which games matter in the regular season change a ton when there are playoff byes at stake. (For the NBA, I’m referring to being top 6 in each conference going directly to the playoffs as opposed to being in the play-in round in places 7-10.)

Similarly, the bye changes the stakes of the CCGs for the power leagues drastically - they want that set up where whoever wins is effectively guaranteed to get a first round bye. They can’t let in a lower tier division winner like they’ve done in the past.

I think all of the power leagues have internalized what I’ve stated above, which is why they’re all scrapping divisions.

MAC is a power conference?

(11-03-2023 01:05 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I hope not. I like divisions. Gives fans something to cheer for if they’re not a top 2 team. No divisions just limits the season to the top 2 teams & is usually decided by September.

Is that really true? Looking at the MAC this year, Toledo is in pole position with a 5-0 record in the MAC West. Miami leads the MAC East with a 4-1 record. However, 5 other teams are at 3-2 (1 game behind Miami) and another 2 teams are 2-3 (2 games behind Miami). In a divisionless structure, that’s 7 teams that are within 2 games (and 5 teams within 1 game) of the second CCG slot going into November.

In contrast, under the division structure, Toledo’s dominance has effectively eliminated the 2-3 teams from the CCG while the 3-2 teams have an uphill battle.

So, I think the division proponents are missing that when you have a totally dominant team that’s leading one division (as is the case with Toledo in the MAC West this year), it’s eliminating a whole swath of teams in that division from the CCG race in a way that isn’t the case in a divisionless structure.

(11-03-2023 12:00 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’m surprised that they haven’t been scrapped already. The new CFP heavily incentivizes every conference (from top to bottom) to put their two best teams in the CCG.

For Go5 conferences, it is only a powerful incentive to the extent that a conference expects that it's champion will be in the running for the Go5 spot in the "Top N+1 FBS Champions, for N = Number of Power Conferences" ranking.

I’m usually a strong proponent for divisions but in the case of a 14-member MAC, I don’t think Akron/Kent/Miami/Ohio want to be stuck making a bunch of trips to the Northeast.

I think Flex-Protect-Plus makes the most sense with the following being protected:

EMU/CMU/WMU
Buffalo/UMass/UConn
NIU-Ball St
Ohio-Miami
Akron-Kent St
BG-Toledo

(11-03-2023 02:45 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m usually a strong proponent for divisions but in the case of a 14-member MAC, I don’t think Akron/Kent/Miami/Ohio want to be stuck making a bunch of trips to the Northeast.

I think Flex-Protect-Plus makes the most sense with the following being protected:

EMU/CMU/WMU
Buffalo/UMass/UConn
NIU-Ball St
Ohio-Miami
Akron-Kent St
BG-Toledo

I'd rotate the Ohio teams to make sure they still play each other.

(11-03-2023 01:05 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I hope not. I like divisions. Gives fans something to cheer for if they’re not a top 2 team. No divisions just limits the season to the top 2 teams & is usually decided by September.

I agree with this. It keeps more fans interested longer. Plus, a championship game between the top two teams in some monolithic table of teams seems about as pointless as a postseason conference basketball tournament.

(11-03-2023 02:48 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(11-03-2023 02:45 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m usually a strong proponent for divisions but in the case of a 14-member MAC, I don’t think Akron/Kent/Miami/Ohio want to be stuck making a bunch of trips to the Northeast.

I think Flex-Protect-Plus makes the most sense with the following being protected:

EMU/CMU/WMU
Buffalo/UMass/UConn
NIU-Ball St
Ohio-Miami
Akron-Kent St
BG-Toledo

I'd rotate the Ohio teams to make sure they still play each other.

With 12 non-locked schools to play using 7 games per year, we'd see each other fairly regularly.

While the two-rival set-ups shown above are pods, it is not necessary to have pods in order to have two rivals. If I had my druthers, I'd lock Bowling Green as well as Akron. Ball State would also probably like to have Miami.

EMU/CMU/WMU
Buffalo/UMass/UConn
NIU-Ball St
Ball St-Miami
Ohio-Miami
Akron-Kent St
Kent St-BG
BG-Toledo

We'd still have 11 teams to play in 6 conference games, so if a third school is locked for a single four year cycle, we could play five of the rest home and away over two years and then the other five home and away.

(11-03-2023 01:05 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I hope not. I like divisions. Gives fans something to cheer for if they’re not a top 2 team. No divisions just limits the season to the top 2 teams & is usually decided by September.

Roy Kramer agrees.
"I was 100 percent convinced the move to divisions and creation of the SEC Championship Game would be a success. I had no doubt about it. What did surprise me, and I admittedly did not foresee, was the enormous positive impact that it had on the regular season. The move to divisions kept more teams - and the excitement that comes with it - in the championship race much longer. We had seasons after expansion when we were two or three weeks into November and six or seven teams were still in the running for Atlanta. Prior to 1992, many games later in the season simply were not viewed as having as much impact as they do now."
https://www.secsports.com/article/291948...shaped-sec

(11-03-2023 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-03-2023 01:05 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I hope not. I like divisions. Gives fans something to cheer for if they’re not a top 2 team. No divisions just limits the season to the top 2 teams & is usually decided by September.

Is that really true? Looking at the MAC this year, Toledo is in pole position with a 5-0 record in the MAC West. Miami leads the MAC East with a 4-1 record. However, 5 other teams are at 3-2 (1 game behind Miami) and another 2 teams are 2-3 (2 games behind Miami). In a divisionless structure, that’s 7 teams that are within 2 games (and 5 teams within 1 game) of the second CCG slot going into November.

In contrast, under the division structure, Toledo’s dominance has effectively eliminated the 2-3 teams from the CCG while the 3-2 teams have an uphill battle.

So, I think the division proponents are missing that when you have a totally dominant team that’s leading one division (as is the case with Toledo in the MAC West this year), it’s eliminating a whole swath of teams in that division from the CCG race in a way that isn’t the case in a divisionless structure.

This season is more of an exception, the MAC usually isn’t this top heavy but Toledo and Miami are definitely the two best teams. The closeness of the East standings is a bit of a mirage since Miami has a pretty soft schedule from here, has the tiebreaker over OU/BG, and gets UB (who’s looked less than impressive against some lousy teams this year) at home.

A more typical season is something like 2021, where we had three 6-2 and two 5-3 teams. Miami and Kent State matched up the last week at 5-2 with the winner going to the CCG, it came down to a missed Miami 2 point conversion to determine the game and division; in a divisionless format, the game would’ve been for nothing as CMU/NIU with their better overall records would have already clinched.

Also given that CFP byes in the new format are pretty much out of reach for MAC teams, it’s less of a consideration than other conferences. Usually the two division champs are the best teams in the conference anyways so it’s not like the opponent is dragging down the winners resume much if at all. I get why no divisions makes sense for other conferences, but like general realignment the MAC is just built differently.

(11-04-2023 10:07 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  ... A more typical season is something like 2021, where we had three 6-2 and two 5-3 teams. Miami and Kent State matched up the last week at 5-2 with the winner going to the CCG, it came down to a missed Miami 2 point conversion to determine the game and division; in a divisionless format, the game would’ve been for nothing as CMU/NIU with their better overall records would have already clinched.

This is a point to bear in mind ... the MAC schools don't build dynasties, because once a coach is on the track to doing so, he's hired away, and nowadays when a Sophomore looks like he has developed enough that he is going to be contributing to a championship run, odds are that he is going to be playing as a Junior somewhere else.

Quote: Also given that CFP byes in the new format are pretty much out of reach for MAC teams, it’s less of a consideration than other conferences. Usually the two division champs are the best teams in the conference anyways so it’s not like the opponent is dragging down the winners resume much if at all....

If the best MAC school is in the mix for the CFP12 spot, it's either because all three of the MAC, AAC and Sunbelt cannibalized themselves in the same year ... which is long odds ... or because a lightning in a bottle team has come together, and have won the OOC games to get national attention.

If it's going to be a once in a decade or less run at a CFP12 spot, the CFP12 race is not going to be the primary factor in making the decision whether to stay with divisions.