Dodd: Big 12 - ACC get NCAA to change restrictions on conf champ game

[Winter Tim]

What is the ACC up to?
And.... sorry BYU. Looks like we want option of championship game... without splitting any of our conference money.




CBSsports.com
>>> ....Legislation allowing for the deregulation of conference championship games is now expected to be passed by 2016, CBSSports.com has learned.


The move would directly impact the Big 12 and ACC, which developed the legislation. The Big 12, which is the only Power Five league without a championship game, is merely seeking the option of staging such a contest with 10 teams.

The ACC's ultimate intentions with a 14-team league in football, one which already holds a championship game, are not clear....

 

[Leave No Doubt WVU]

Thanks Ollie**

Nm

 

[PaintedontheSky]

Originally posted by Winter Tim:
What is the ACC up to?
And.... sorry BYU. Looks like we want option of championship game... without splitting any of our conference money.




CBSsports.com
>>> ....Legislation allowing for the deregulation of conference championship games is now expected to be passed by 2016, CBSSports.com has learned.

The move would directly impact the Big 12 and ACC, which developed the legislation. The Big 12, which is the only Power Five league without a championship game, is merely seeking the option of staging such a contest with 10 teams.

The ACC's ultimate intentions with a 14-team league in football, one which already holds a championship game, are not clear....

 

[Winter Tim]

>>> what the ACC is up to is that they want to be able to choose which teams within their conference play in the Conference Championship Game

 

[PaintedontheSky]

I read somewhere that's what the ACC is looking for. The championship games have not lived-up to promise and in some cases it's been concluded it was because of the match-ups....... and you can bet the TV guys, as well as the conference, are pushing for the change.

 

[Op2]

I may be the exception but I prefer not having a conference title game. *

*

 

[PaintedontheSky]

Agreed, Op2......

In my perfect world, I'd rather see round-robin play within conferences that would determine the conference champion and the College Football Playoffs expanded to 8 teams with totally random seeding of the 8 participants, draw 'em out of a hat.

But, alas, in today's world where the notion of "deserving" as opposed to "earning" is the norm, I doubt that's gonna' happen.

This post was edited on 4/8 12:55 PM by PaintedontheSky

 

[topdecktiger]

This has been sort of misreported. This issue isn't really with the CCG. The problem is with the schedule, because some teams are only playing each other once or twice a decade. That's why North Carolina and Wake Forest are playing each other OOC.

 

[eers1foru]

Originally posted by PaintedontheSky:

Agreed, Op2......

In my perfect world, I'd rather see round-robin play within conferences that would determine the conference champion and the College Football Playoffs expanded to 8 teams with totally random seeding of the 8 participants, draw 'em out of a hat.

But, alas, in today's world where the notion of "deserving" as opposed to "earning" is the norm, I doubt that's gonna' happen.

This post was edited on 4/8 12:55 PM by PaintedontheSky

When was the last time round robin crowned a true champion? It always ends up in a two or three way tie with multiple schools claiming a share of the title. Then fuzzy math and 4 tie breakers later a team is called champion for the sake of getting a better bowl. At least in this proposed change you could take the two highest ranked teams in that mix and have them play each other. That one more win over a quality opponent would at least give them a a leg to stand on when telling the other teams in the conference they deserve to be called a "true champion"

 

[PaintedontheSky]

Originally posted by eers1foru:

Originally posted by PaintedontheSky:

Agreed, Op2......

In my perfect world, I'd rather see round-robin play within conferences that would determine the conference champion and the College Football Playoffs expanded to 8 teams with totally random seeding of the 8 participants, draw 'em out of a hat.

But, alas, in today's world where the notion of "deserving" as opposed to "earning" is the norm, I doubt that's gonna' happen.

This post was edited on 4/8 12:55 PM by PaintedontheSky

When was the last time round robin crowned a true champion? It always ends up in a two or three way tie with multiple schools claiming a share of the title. Then fuzzy math and 4 tie breakers later a team is called champion for the sake of getting a better bowl. At least in this proposed change you could take the two highest ranked teams in that mix and have them play each other. That one more win over a quality opponent would at least give them a a leg to stand on when telling the other teams in the conference they deserve to be called a "true champion"

I don't give two shits and a fart in the wind about the "tiebreaker"....... that's up to the individual conferences to decide. What matters is that every conference member has equal opportunity to win the conference title and to participate in the College Football Playoff......

Pay Attention... It's about EVERY TEAM having an opportunity to EARN IT not DESERVE IT.

 

[skygusty]

It won't matter

You still have five major conferences vying for four spots. Somebody is going to be butthurt every year. Expand to 8 teams and be done with it.

 

[eers1foru]

Originally posted by PaintedontheSky:

Originally posted by eers1foru:

Originally posted by PaintedontheSky:

Agreed, Op2......

In my perfect world, I'd rather see round-robin play within conferences that would determine the conference champion and the College Football Playoffs expanded to 8 teams with totally random seeding of the 8 participants, draw 'em out of a hat.

But, alas, in today's world where the notion of "deserving" as opposed to "earning" is the norm, I doubt that's gonna' happen.

This post was edited on 4/8 12:55 PM by PaintedontheSky

When was the last time round robin crowned a true champion? It always ends up in a two or three way tie with multiple schools claiming a share of the title. Then fuzzy math and 4 tie breakers later a team is called champion for the sake of getting a better bowl. At least in this proposed change you could take the two highest ranked teams in that mix and have them play each other. That one more win over a quality opponent would at least give them a a leg to stand on when telling the other teams in the conference they deserve to be called a "true champion"

I don't give two shits and a fart in the wind about the "tiebreaker"....... that's up to the individual conferences to decide. What matters is that every conference member has equal opportunity to win the conference title and to participate in the College Football Playoff......

Pay Attention... It's about EVERY TEAM having an opportunity to EARN IT not DESERVE IT.

How would a team not be given the chance to "earn it" if you add a championship game? Let it play out just like it does now. At the end of the season take the two best teams in the conference and let'm earn the title of "true champion" on the field and not from behind a desk with a three inch thick book of by-laws. If you wanted to be fair about it you wouldn't even have to have a championship game every year. If the season ends with a clear cut champion and no tie breakers then why play another game?

 

[PaintedontheSky]

Originally posted by eers1foru:

Originally posted by PaintedontheSky:

Originally posted by eers1foru:

Originally posted by PaintedontheSky:

Agreed, Op2......

In my perfect world, I'd rather see round-robin play within conferences that would determine the conference champion and the College Football Playoffs expanded to 8 teams with totally random seeding of the 8 participants, draw 'em out of a hat.

But, alas, in today's world where the notion of "deserving" as opposed to "earning" is the norm, I doubt that's gonna' happen.

This post was edited on 4/8 12:55 PM by PaintedontheSky

When was the last time round robin crowned a true champion? It always ends up in a two or three way tie with multiple schools claiming a share of the title. Then fuzzy math and 4 tie breakers later a team is called champion for the sake of getting a better bowl. At least in this proposed change you could take the two highest ranked teams in that mix and have them play each other. That one more win over a quality opponent would at least give them a a leg to stand on when telling the other teams in the conference they deserve to be called a "true champion"

I don't give two shits and a fart in the wind about the "tiebreaker"....... that's up to the individual conferences to decide. What matters is that every conference member has equal opportunity to win the conference title and to participate in the College Football Playoff......

Pay Attention... It's about EVERY TEAM having an opportunity to EARN IT not DESERVE IT.

How would a team not be given the chance to "earn it" if you add a championship game? Let it play out just like it does now. At the end of the season take the two best teams in the conference and let'm earn the title of "true champion" on the field and not from behind a desk with a three inch thick book of by-laws. If you wanted to be fair about it you wouldn't even have to have a championship game every year. If the season ends with a clear cut champion and no tie breakers then why play another game?

You do know and understand the concept of Round-Robin Play, don't you?

 

[GoWVU]

You are NOT the exception, conf champ gms are a sham. Only idiots want it*

nm

 

[VaultHunter]

I like having a championship game especially if the Big12 can do so without expanding.

If TCU and Baylor would have played a conference championship game the winner would have made the playoff.

I'm sorry if you don't agree but not having a conference championship game hurt the Big12.

 

[topdecktiger]

Originally posted by PaintedontheSky:

I don't give two shits and a fart in the wind about the "tiebreaker"....... that's up to the individual conferences to decide. What matters is that every conference member has equal opportunity to win the conference title and to participate in the College Football Playoff......

Pay Attention... It's about EVERY TEAM having an opportunity to EARN IT not DESERVE IT.




They do have an equal opportunity. Win your division, and you go to the CCG.

 

[PaintedontheSky]

Originally posted by topdecktiger:

Originally posted by PaintedontheSky:


I don't give two shits and a fart in the wind about the "tiebreaker"....... that's up to the individual conferences to decide. What matters is that every conference member has equal opportunity to win the conference title and to participate in the College Football Playoff......

Pay Attention... It's about EVERY TEAM having an opportunity to EARN IT not DESERVE IT.






They do have an equal opportunity. Win your division, and you go to the CCG.

The current set-up is gerrymandering, as everybody in the conference doesn't get a shot at everybody other conference member. Like I said, I don't care what the tiebreaker is...... as long as there's a Round-Robin format within the conference as the path to get there. These conferences with 14 teams have 13 weeks to play one another, that's O.K. with me.

 

[Woody in Helvetia]

Re: It won't matter

I think 4 makes it more interesting and makes everyone schedule tough games.
And I think there will be years when 2 teams make it from one conference plus maybe a ND.

 

[topdecktiger]

Originally posted by PaintedontheSky:

The current set-up is gerrymandering, as everybody in the conference doesn't get a shot at everybody other conference member. Like I said, I don't care what the tiebreaker is...... as long as there's a Round-Robin format within the conference as the path to get there. These conferences with 14 teams have 13 weeks to play one another, that's O.K. with me.

It doesn't matter if they don't play ever other conference member. All the teams in one division play each other, and then the winner plays the best team from the other division. It doesn't matter if the winner of Division A didn't play the 3rd place team in Division B. One way or another, the best teams in the conference had to play each other, whether it was during the season, or in the CCG.

 

[skygusty]

Re: It won't matter

The elite schools always get the benefit of the doubt. Alabama can schedule patsies, TCU cannot. Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Michigan, Oregon, Florida State, Clemson, Auburn, Florida and probably a few others can get away with weak schedules. When it is those teams on the fence and being left out of the 4 team group I expect the complaints to result in a change. If it is a no-name team from a big conference vying for the last slot against an elite school and losing out, nobody will care enough to make a change.

 

[doneagain]

I had read somewhere on some fan blog that there were a few reasons for the ACC wanting to be able to determine its championship game participants. Now being a fan blog, take it for what it's worth

1) what you said initially... teams in the same region that have traditionally played each other want to be able to do so more often. With 14.5 teams in the conference, some teams might not play each other for several years.

2) splitting the conference into 3 divisions, and then being able to take whichever two division champs they want for the championship game, most likely the two that have the best shot at making the playoffs.

3) potentially going to a 5-conference-game format. As mentioned above, going to 3 divisions with 14.5 teams is an issue when the .5 team only plays 5 conference games per year. If they went to 5 conference games, Notre Dame would be eligible for the championship. The teams would then be free to schedule non-conference match ups with the remaining ACC teams if they choose in order to maintain traditional rivalries that may not be in the same division. They would not have to expand beyond 14.5 teams with this format either, and Notre Dame could effectively become a full-time member.

 

[PaintedontheSky]

Originally posted by topdecktiger:

Originally posted by PaintedontheSky:


The current set-up is gerrymandering, as everybody in the conference doesn't get a shot at everybody other conference member. Like I said, I don't care what the tiebreaker is...... as long as there's a Round-Robin format within the conference as the path to get there. These conferences with 14 teams have 13 weeks to play one another, that's O.K. with me.

It doesn't matter if they don't play ever other conference member. All the teams in one division play each other, and then the winner plays the best team from the other division. It doesn't matter if the winner of Division A didn't play the 3rd place team in Division B. One way or another, the best teams in the conference had to play each other, whether it was during the season, or in the CCG.

Nawh, it's gerrymandering, like I said. What they've done is create mini-conferences within a conference. And you know as well as I do why it was done in that fashion...... and you also know as well as I do what it leads to and what's driving it as far as TV dollars and subjective selection for bowls and the College Football Playoff......

I vote those slots be decided on the field of play as opposed to some smoke-filled back room or in some corporate media office.

 

[Winter Tim]

The way it is now in the 2-division conferences, who goes to the championship game is still based on "conference record"... not "division record."
So... for instance, maybe Ga Tech beats Va Tech.... but loses to Florida State and Louisville in a year where both of those are top 10 teams.... but Va Tech doesn't have to play either of FlaSt or Lville... but draws Clemson as an inter-conference game - in a year when Clemson is down?
Then, you could have 7-1 Va Tech playing for Conf Championship game... and a 6-2 Georgia Tech not.... even though... both GT beat every team in their division (including VT)... and VT didn't have to play the teams GT lost to (and thus, may have lost at least one themselves). Make sense?

I think to have a better idea of conference standings, everyone needs to play everyone.
Also, I find conference championship games AND conference basketball tourneys to be redundant. I thought that was why you play the regular season? To determine the best team in the conference?

 

[PaintedontheSky]

You and I appear to be on the same page, Tim......... preferring a Performance Based as opposed to a Potential Based qualifier/selection process.

 

[Winter Tim]

I think conference champions games (football) and conference tournaments (basketball) are for the fans... or ESPN and TV.
What is the purpose of a game/tourney at the end? They just spent an entire season demonstrating who was the best in the conference. That is, unless you don't play round-robin. But if you don't play round-robin, how do you know the right teams made it to the championship game?

 

[topdecktiger]

Originally posted by PaintedontheSky:

Nawh, it's gerrymandering, like I said. What they've done is create mini-conferences within a conference. And you know as well as I do why it was done in that fashion...... and you also know as well as I do what it leads to and what's driving it as far as TV dollars and subjective selection for bowls and the College Football Playoff......

I vote those slots be decided on the field of play as opposed to some smoke-filled back room or in some corporate media office.

No, it's not gerrymandering at all. You're right, that you essentially have two "mini-conferences." That's the point. The champs of each "mini-conference" play each other for the larger conference championship. There's no vote in any smoke-filled room. The teams play on the field, and the winners of each division meets each other. It's decided on the field.

 

[topdecktiger]

Originally posted by Winter Tim:


The way it is now in the 2-division conferences, who goes to the championship game is still based on "conference record"... not "division record."
So... for instance, maybe Ga Tech beats Va Tech.... but loses to Florida State and Louisville in a year where both of those are top 10 teams.... but Va Tech doesn't have to play either of FlaSt or Lville... but draws Clemson as an inter-conference game - in a year when Clemson is down?
Then, you could have 7-1 Va Tech playing for Conf Championship game... and a 6-2 Georgia Tech not.... even though... both GT beat every team in their division (including VT)... and VT didn't have to play the teams GT lost to (and thus, may have lost at least one themselves). Make sense?

I think to have a better idea of conference standings, everyone needs to play everyone.
Also, I find conference championship games AND conference basketball tourneys to be redundant. I thought that was why you play the regular season? To determine the best team in the conference?


Right. And I guess you think the way the Big 12 ended up with TCU/Baylor was neatly cut and dried.

The point you are missing is that the division format was set up because all the teams can't play each other. If all the conferences only had 8 or 9 teams, it wouldn't be an issue. They would just all play each other. The problem is that some conferences are too big for all the teams to play each other. That's why you have a CCG, to make sure that the two best teams play each other, whether that was during the regular season, or in the title game.

 

[PaintedontheSky]

Originally posted by topdecktiger:

Originally posted by PaintedontheSky:


Nawh, it's gerrymandering, like I said. What they've done is create mini-conferences within a conference. And you know as well as I do why it was done in that fashion...... and you also know as well as I do what it leads to and what's driving it as far as TV dollars and subjective selection for bowls and the College Football Playoff......

I vote those slots be decided on the field of play as opposed to some smoke-filled back room or in some corporate media office.

No, it's not gerrymandering at all. You're right, that you essentially have two "mini-conferences." That's the point. The champs of each "mini-conference" play each other for the larger conference championship. There's no vote in any smoke-filled room. The teams play on the field, and the winners of each division meets each other. It's decided on the field.

......and who decides which teams are in which mini-conference and who decides when and which teams play which teams from the other mini-conference if not the guys in the smoke-filled room, could it be the gerrymanders, or maybe the guys in the corporate media offices?

 

[PaintedontheSky]

Patterson adds some spice to the methods, madness, and our conversation.......

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25142280/tcus-patterson-criticizes-cfp-selection-committee-about-being-left-out

 

[topdecktiger]

Originally posted by PaintedontheSky:

......and who decides which teams are in which mini-conference and who decides when and which teams play which teams from the other mini-conference if not the guys in the smoke-filled room, could it be the gerrymanders, or maybe the guys in the corporate media offices?

By that logic, every conference is gerrymandered. Guys in smoke-filled rooms decided West Virginia would be in the Big 12, Colorado would be in the Pac 12, Rutgers would be in the Big Ten, etc.

 

[PaintedontheSky]

Originally posted by topdecktiger:

Originally posted by PaintedontheSky:


......and who decides which teams are in which mini-conference and who decides when and which teams play which teams from the other mini-conference if not the guys in the smoke-filled room, could it be the gerrymanders, or maybe the guys in the corporate media offices?

By that logic, every conference is gerrymandered. Guys in smoke-filled rooms decided West Virginia would be in the Big 12, Colorado would be in the Pac 12, Rutgers would be in the Big Ten, etc.

Uh, yes...... so what's your point? Of course they did, but you've had an oversight by failing to mention and include the corporate media guys. I accept that, they're all a part of it and they all have a role..... just as other parties with interest do.

The point is who is best and how is the best way for all concerned, that college football be planned, organized, directed, and controlled?

 

[topdecktiger]

Originally posted by PaintedontheSky:

Uh, yes...... so what's your point? Of course they did, but you've had an oversight by failing to mention and include the corporate media guys. I accept that, they're all a part of it and they all have a role..... just as other parties with interest do.

The point is who is best and how is the best way for all concerned, that college football be planned, organized, directed, and controlled?

My point is, you only used the "gerrymandering" issue regarding conferences with divisions. You weren't making this broader argument until I pointed out how it can be applied to conferences that don't have divisions.

 

[eers1foru]

I understand perfectly what round robin is. I also understand that in most seasons it leads to shared conference titles. When your conference motto is "one true champion" it's complete idiocy to be the only conference who shares conference titles. Take the two highest ranked teams via the tie breaker model already in place, tell'm good job for earning a spot in the championship game now go settle it on the field.

 

[PaintedontheSky]

Originally posted by topdecktiger:

Originally posted by PaintedontheSky:


Uh, yes...... so what's your point? Of course they did, but you've had an oversight by failing to mention and include the corporate media guys. I accept that, they're all a part of it and they all have a role..... just as other parties with interest do.

The point is who is best and how is the best way for all concerned, that college football be planned, organized, directed, and controlled?

My point is, you only used the "gerrymandering" issue regarding conferences with divisions. You weren't making this broader argument until I pointed out how it can be applied to conferences that don't have divisions.

Well, O.K. if that's your point..... and yes, the scope is throughout the entire landscape, although I don't recall limiting my claims to only conferences with divisions........... if you look you'll see my point(s) have been Round-Robin Play and having teams have Equal Opportunity to Earn On The Field their spots in post regular season play...... and as Tim, I believe it was, pointed out, to also lose potential spots as determined by their play on the field. Let's not lose site of that either.

 

[topdecktiger]

Originally posted by PaintedontheSky:

Well, O.K. if that's your point..... and yes, the scope is throughout the entire landscape, although I don't recall limiting my claims to only conferences with divisions........... if you look you'll see my point(s) have been Round-Robin Play and having teams have Equal Opportunity to Earn On The Field their spots in post regular season play...... and as Tim, I believe it was, pointed out, to also lose potential spots as determined by their play on the field. Let's not lose site of that either.

You did, regarding my conversation. You started off saying:

What matters is that every conference member has equal opportunity to win the conference title

Then I said:

They do have an equal opportunity. Win your division, and you go to the CCG.

Then you said:

The current set-up is gerrymandering, as everybody in the conference doesn't get a shot at everybody other conference member.

That's where the disagreement comes in. Having divisions is not gerrymandering, which is what led to the "smoke-filled room" comments. In a conference with divisions, everybody has the same shot: win your division, and go to the title game. That by definition is equal opportunity. My disagreement with you is that you are trying to define equal opportunity as round-robin, and that's not the case. All the teams in the Big Ten have the same opportunity (win the division & title game), just as the teams in the Big 12 (finish 1st in the round robin).

The real motivation for this round robin business is that you want the other leagues to be like the Big 12. That's not necessary, because again, all the teams in the other conference have the same opportunity to win their divisions.

 

[PaintedontheSky]

Originally posted by topdecktiger:

Originally posted by PaintedontheSky:


Well, O.K. if that's your point..... and yes, the scope is throughout the entire landscape, although I don't recall limiting my claims to only conferences with divisions........... if you look you'll see my point(s) have been Round-Robin Play and having teams have Equal Opportunity to Earn On The Field their spots in post regular season play...... and as Tim, I believe it was, pointed out, to also lose potential spots as determined by their play on the field. Let's not lose site of that either.

You did, regarding my conversation. You started off saying:

What matters is that every conference member has equal opportunity to win the conference title

Then I said:

They do have an equal opportunity. Win your division, and you go to the CCG.

Then you said:

The current set-up is gerrymandering, as everybody in the conference doesn't get a shot at everybody other conference member.

That's where the disagreement comes in. Having divisions is not gerrymandering, which is what led to the "smoke-filled room" comments. In a conference with divisions, everybody has the same shot: win your division, and go to the title game. That by definition is equal opportunity. My disagreement with you is that you are trying to define equal opportunity as round-robin, and that's not the case. All the teams in the Big Ten have the same opportunity (win the division & title game), just as the teams in the Big 12 (finish 1st in the round robin).

The real motivation for this round robin business is that you want the other leagues to be like the Big 12. That's not necessary, because again, all the teams in the other conference have the same opportunity to win their divisions.

What I wrote is absolutely true. What you've taken from what I wrote is not.

Your thoughts and perceptions of things such as "real motivations" are yours and yours alone, and in this case just simply wrong. And judging by your posts, such as the ones in this thread, as well as previous others, your thoughts and perceptions are not serving you well in you happen to be in search of or attempting to recount the truth.

You go right ahead and believe what you what to believe, matters not one iota to me.