Conference Championship Game in a 16 team conference?
- Thread starter GMoose
- Start date
Oops, I gotta edit this since I see you mentioned the 4 divisions.
Pick the winner of each division and put them in a two game playoff. It's really the only way possible with so many teams.
Last edited by a moderator:
jnkyrdoff6
Five-Star Recruit
Yeah, that's what I think would happen. Some European soccer leagues do similar things.
GMoose
All-Conference
That was my first thought...but would the NCAA allow this? I know now if you travel to Hawaii to play an away game, you get to play 13 regular season games...but this is a different story. 4 teams would be playing and extra game.
huskerscott
Starter
This is what I have been wondering too when the 4 division scenario was suggested.... their is no real way to determine the 2 best teams in the conference. I also think that the NCAA will not allow a conference to exist in a 4 division layout. 2 division 8 teams is the only way to make it realistically work. But even that way would have flaws, just not as many as a 4 team/4 division would.
To me, that's the sticky part of the whole situation. Realistically speaking, picking a winner from each division and playing them against each other is the only way to work with a 16 team division.
Now, two problems arise. First, it will be the only conference that would act like this. Would the NCAA be O.K. with this? My guess is no, because then we get to our second problem: play-offs. Eventually, the NCAA will move to some type of play-off system for football. This conference might propel that idea.
Now, when (or by those of you who don't agree, "if") a play-off system comes to fruition, wouldn't this conflict with the play-off system that would be instituted? The play-off would more than likely involve the conference winner from each major conference.
However, let's say Team A is in Division One of the four divisions. After their regular season finishes (let's say, they play four non-cons and then 6 games against their division and two against outside division teams) they would then move into the play-offs, given that they win their division. The inter-conference play-off would add two games to their schedule, facing the winner of another division and then their next game would decide the over-all conference winner.
Now, if Team A wins both play-off games, their grand total of season games would reach 14. Most teams only play 14 games in an entire season, but Team A has yet to even reach the NCAA play-off. It's really difficult in college athletics for the season to be any longer than it already is, because it would eventually conflict with Spring practices and the off-season would be significantly shorter. Not that it is an issue, but a student athlete has grades to worry about as well.
So, the only real solution is to then shorten the regular season, but the regular season is what makes college athletics so important. It would essentially ruin the whole ambiance of college football if play-off systems became the brunt of what mattered most. Not to mention, after all of this, you still have the bowl games to work out, which I'm 99.9% sure will always remain in one form or another.
TL;DRSo, I know this is kind of long, but the issues that arise are these: A) How does it affect an eventual play-off system? B ) How does this affect the regular season? C) What happens to the bowl games with all of these play-off games? D) Do we just have to make a bunch of super-conferences now so everything is fair?
Last edited by a moderator:
kansas husker
All-Conference
To make it simple each team would play seven conference games the three other teams from your division and four from others. Then the divisions line up aginst each other for hence the two game playoff. To make it more interesting to schedule the interdivisional games each team could have one "rival" from another division they play every year. Then take the previous years finish and compare them all the teams who finished #1 play each othe. It is similar to how the nfl does there schedule it could work really nicely.
I think I answered this issue in my other post:
"I think it makes much more sense to split a 16-team conference into 4-team subdivisions. Then you play a rotating 3-year selection of the other subdivisions, your subdivision and 1 protected game for a conference like the Big Ten. What is nice, is that essentially splits the conference down the middle with 2 4-team subdivisions paired on a rotating schedule to make up each years division sending one school to the championship game. The mathematics behind it are a bit cumbersome but easily doable. The thing is you need to schedule so that teams get to protect their guaranteed games with the +1 game and the division alignment. They are limited to 8 conference games plus the conference championship game. No increases necessary over the 12-team format.
Group 1:
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa
Group 2:
Notre Dame if Applicable
Ohio State
Michigan
Group 3:
Michigan State
Penn State
Group 4:
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
Northwestern
Protected:
Michigan - Michigan State
Notre Dame - Purdue
Ohio State - Penn State
Group 1 is a no-brainer. Protects all the current rivalries and makes scheduling much simpler.
Group 4 is not ideal, but protects the rivalries while opening other groups to create the right alignment for traditional rivalries.
Notre Dame would lose their protected rivalry with Michigan State sadly. There is not a very logical layout that would cause a year-in year-out game. This also produces one group which is sub-par to the others. The beauty of this is that the conference game eliminates the necessity for equally productive divisions when the weak subdivisions pair with any other given subdivision. It may devalue the conference championship at times, but protects the integrity of the tradition. Furthermore, when Notre Dame's group is paired with the Purdue group, it allows them to play MSU. Another cycle pairing them with MSU's group leads to 2 out of every 3 years playing their current active rivalry. If Pittsburgh is added and joins the Notre Dame group, it would be a strong group, but also protects this active Notre Dame rivalry. In order to make this a strong layout, and protect the championship game, 2 quality teams need to be added to Group 3. Even though it is not geographically friendly,
I think Nebraska joining Group 3 would create the ideal layout in terms of team strength, group strength and division strength (which protects the championship game's draw). Ideally you would also add a strong team to the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Iowa group. Possibly Missouri?
Dealing with uneven geographical pairings can be eliminated by stipulating that travel expenses come out of the Television revenue pot before the revenue is split evenly among the teams. Cap cost to eliminate abuse.
I believe this type of format is much more appealing to the Big Ten than to create 8-team divisions that are not dynamic.
Note: All present protected games are included in this layout, so no protected games are lost from current Big 1T1en format
It also opens up new and interesting rivalries by allowing things like an Iowa-Nebraska protected game, and other possibilities from the open slots for current teams and added teams."
In this format, Nebraska and Missouri can easily keep their rivalry alive through division or protected rivalry means. The only problem with this setup is that if only 3 Big East teams are added, you need to field a division of the three Big East players with a team from a lot farther west. Penn State would lose a protected game if placed in a group with them. What might be best is to split them up, placing one with Group 1, Group 2 and Group 3. This levels the travelling costs somewhat.
If you look at the present protected game format, you will notice that Iowa-Minnesota-Wisconsin has a triad so this group is easily managed. There is also a circle between the Group 4 teams. The real issue is that the other 2 groups need protected games, but if you merge them and Notre Dame is not added, you do not have to run protected games at all.
"I think it makes much more sense to split a 16-team conference into 4-team subdivisions. Then you play a rotating 3-year selection of the other subdivisions, your subdivision and 1 protected game for a conference like the Big Ten. What is nice, is that essentially splits the conference down the middle with 2 4-team subdivisions paired on a rotating schedule to make up each years division sending one school to the championship game. The mathematics behind it are a bit cumbersome but easily doable. The thing is you need to schedule so that teams get to protect their guaranteed games with the +1 game and the division alignment. They are limited to 8 conference games plus the conference championship game. No increases necessary over the 12-team format.
Group 1:
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa
Group 2:
Notre Dame if Applicable
Ohio State
Michigan
Group 3:
Michigan State
Penn State
Group 4:
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
Northwestern
Protected:
Michigan - Michigan State
Notre Dame - Purdue
Ohio State - Penn State
Group 1 is a no-brainer. Protects all the current rivalries and makes scheduling much simpler.
Group 4 is not ideal, but protects the rivalries while opening other groups to create the right alignment for traditional rivalries.
Notre Dame would lose their protected rivalry with Michigan State sadly. There is not a very logical layout that would cause a year-in year-out game. This also produces one group which is sub-par to the others. The beauty of this is that the conference game eliminates the necessity for equally productive divisions when the weak subdivisions pair with any other given subdivision. It may devalue the conference championship at times, but protects the integrity of the tradition. Furthermore, when Notre Dame's group is paired with the Purdue group, it allows them to play MSU. Another cycle pairing them with MSU's group leads to 2 out of every 3 years playing their current active rivalry. If Pittsburgh is added and joins the Notre Dame group, it would be a strong group, but also protects this active Notre Dame rivalry. In order to make this a strong layout, and protect the championship game, 2 quality teams need to be added to Group 3. Even though it is not geographically friendly,
I think Nebraska joining Group 3 would create the ideal layout in terms of team strength, group strength and division strength (which protects the championship game's draw). Ideally you would also add a strong team to the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Iowa group. Possibly Missouri?
Dealing with uneven geographical pairings can be eliminated by stipulating that travel expenses come out of the Television revenue pot before the revenue is split evenly among the teams. Cap cost to eliminate abuse.
I believe this type of format is much more appealing to the Big Ten than to create 8-team divisions that are not dynamic.
Note: All present protected games are included in this layout, so no protected games are lost from current Big 1T1en format
It also opens up new and interesting rivalries by allowing things like an Iowa-Nebraska protected game, and other possibilities from the open slots for current teams and added teams."
In this format, Nebraska and Missouri can easily keep their rivalry alive through division or protected rivalry means. The only problem with this setup is that if only 3 Big East teams are added, you need to field a division of the three Big East players with a team from a lot farther west. Penn State would lose a protected game if placed in a group with them. What might be best is to split them up, placing one with Group 1, Group 2 and Group 3. This levels the travelling costs somewhat.
If you look at the present protected game format, you will notice that Iowa-Minnesota-Wisconsin has a triad so this group is easily managed. There is also a circle between the Group 4 teams. The real issue is that the other 2 groups need protected games, but if you merge them and Notre Dame is not added, you do not have to run protected games at all.