Georgia, Michigan and TCU

[FrogCop19]

So how would you say that mollywhop compares to the old Number Six?

That's when we go ridin' in, a whippin' and a whompin' everything that moves within an inch of their lives. All 'cept for the womenfolk, of course.

 

[Panther City Frog]

That's when we go ridin' in, a whippin' and a whompin' everything that moves within an inch of their lives. All 'cept for the womenfolk, of course.

You spare the women?

 

[Pharm Frog]

I would have preferred the Big XII simply adding another good non-conference opponent on the front end of every team’s schedule for that extra data point game instead of a CCG.

Secondly, the Big Eleven—I really dislike unbalanced divison schedules and would prefer the Champion be a result of only the traditional round-robin regular season schedule—no CCG needed. With that in mind, the conference could have expanded to 11 instead of 12 and then played 10 conference games with 3 non-conference games for that extra data point game. I even like the Big Eleven name.

How is that gonna happen when it benefits the other conferences who don't play a RR to schedule an extra patsy? You'd be looking to pick up an additional 10 quality opponents per year. Don't think that's likely and maybe not even possible.

 

[FrogCop19]

You spare the women?

Ah no, we *#%$ the *$&% outta them at the Number 6 dance later on that night!

 

[An-Cap Frog]

I always opposed the Big 12 title game. No point when every team plays each other. I used this exact same scenario when adding a Big 12 title game was in the works. I said we will have a year where a team goes undefeated in Big 12 play and wins the league by multiple games and is forced into a meaningless title game.

CCGs are a product of divisions, with the trend being that divisions are going away maybe CCG will too. I agree that they are meaningless...

Tulane was 7-1 in the AAC
Clemson was 8-0 in the ACC
TCU was 9-0 in the Big 12
Michigan was 9-0 in the Big Ten
UTSA was 8-0 in CUSA
Ohio was 7-1 in the MAC
BSU was 8-0 in the MWC
USC was 8-1 in the PAC-12
Georgia was 8-0 in the SEC

Your only exception is that both Troy and South Alabama were 7-1 in the Sun Belt, but they were both in the same division so they are not even playing each other in the CCG...Troy is playing 6-2 Coastal Carolina...lol

 

[LVH]

CCGs are a product of divisions, with the trend being that divisions are going away maybe CCG will too. I agree that they are meaningless...

Tulane was 7-1 in the AAC
Clemson was 8-0 in the ACC
TCU was 9-0 in the Big 12
Michigan was 9-0 in the Big Ten
UTSA was 8-0 in CUSA
Ohio was 7-1 in the MAC
BSU was 8-0 in the MWC
USC was 8-1 in the PAC-12
Georgia was 8-0 in the SEC

Your only exception is that both Troy and South Alabama were 7-1 in the Sun Belt, but they were both in the same division so they are not even playing each other in the CCG...Troy is playing 6-2 Coastal Carolina...lol

I am fine with conference title games where the schedules are unbalanced and not everyone plays each other. But the Big 12 is unique in the fact that the round robin exists so it is not needed. When the 4 new teams are added next year, it will be needed.

 

[This Ain't Chopped Liver]

How is that gonna happen when it benefits the other conferences who don't play a RR to schedule an extra patsy? You'd be looking to pick up an additional 10 quality opponents per year. Don't think that's likely and maybe not even possible.

We don’t know, but maybe some other conferences would prefer to beef up their non-conference schedule. They may feel the need to—Michigan was taking heat for their patsy non-conference schedule this year. It was just pointed out here that Wisconsin needed more in 2017. People recognize and laugh at the SEC for having their late season patsy—Alabama could have used another quality win this year to have any hope. If you can’t find P5 teams then move on to the good G5 teams—they want to play tougher schedules.

But it doesn’t matter now—the Big XII is going to 12 or larger with unbalanced schedules and likely divisions, so a CCG will be deemed necessary. I may have preferred the Big Eleven, with 10 conference regular season games and no CCG.

I still don’t understand why bigger is deemed necessary and better, and I think 9, 10 or 11 conference schools is best from the competitive and fan interest perspective.

 

[LVH]

Fair point, I remember that now.

Doing a little deeper dive, Wisconsin was 12-0 like we are but did not play Ohio State, Michigan State or Penn State to get to that 12-0, and those were the three highest ranked Big 10 teams. They had one win over a ranked team (#21 Northwestern, at home). I guess it'd be like us sitting here at 12-0 but having not played Texas or Kansas State yet. It'd be an ENTIRELY different situation. We would absolutely have to win Saturday in that case, and rightfully so. Wiscy's schedule that year was about as weak a schedule as a P5 team could possibly have.

That Wisconsin team also didn't have the ability to say they beat every team they played

 

[An-Cap Frog]

I am fine with conference title games where the schedules are unbalanced and not everyone plays each other. But the Big 12 is unique in the fact that the round robin exists so it is not needed. When the 4 new teams are added next year, it will be needed.

I know what you mean about unbalanced schedules, sometimes those exist in the same division, but they also seem to match the best team against the 4th or 5th best team in a conference as a whole. Maybe I'm just thinking of the Big10 West here...

 

[Pharm Frog]

We don’t know, but maybe some other conferences would prefer to beef up their non-conference schedule. They may feel the need to—Michigan was taking heat for their patsy non-conference schedule this year. It was just pointed out here that Wisconsin needed more in 2017. People recognize and laugh at the SEC for having their late season patsy—Alabama could have used another quality win this year to have any hope. If you can’t find P5 teams then move on to the good G5 teams—they want to play tougher schedules.

But it doesn’t matter now—the Big XII is going to 12 or larger with unbalanced schedules and likely divisions, so a CCG will be deemed necessary. I may have preferred the Big Eleven, with 10 conference regular season games and no CCG.

I still don’t understand why bigger is deemed necessary and better, and I think 9, 10 or 11 conference schools is best from the competitive and fan interest perspective.

I thought the Big 12 was not going to do divisions. But I may have misread that because I really don’t give a damn about that stuff. I enjoy football games

 

[This Ain't Chopped Liver]

I thought the Big 12 was not going to do divisions. But I may have misread that because I really don’t give a damn about that stuff. I enjoy football games

I don’t know, you probably read correctly, but nonetheless you have unbalanced schedules and the need for a CCG to attempt to gloss over just some of the imbalance.

 

[Dogfrog]

I know what you mean about unbalanced schedules, sometimes those exist in the same division, but they also seem to match the best team against the 4th or 5th best team in a conference as a whole. Maybe I'm just thinking of the Big10 West here...

I believe Pac12, starting this season, has stopped having the two division champs meet in the CCG, rather will have the two highest CFP ranked teams play. I suppose this makes some sense, but some years it seems to me could be very awkward.

 

[JugbandFrog]

I found this to be interesting

TikTok - Make Your Day

www.tiktok.com

 

[Wexahu]

I believe Pac12, starting this season, has stopped having the two division champs meet in the CCG, rather will have the two highest CFP ranked teams play. I suppose this makes some sense, but some years it seems to me could be very awkward.

Like a OSU/UM rematch this weekend. Yes, that would be weird. Would have made last week's game more or less meaningless.

I guess if KSU was the last game on our schedule, we'd be doing the same thing.

 

[Dogfrog]

Like a OSU/UM rematch this weekend. Yes, that would be weird. Would have made last week's game more or less meaningless.

I guess if KSU was the last game on our schedule, we'd be doing the same thing.

I assume the PAC’s two top cfp-ranked teams concept includes possibility of two teams from the same division. I can envision a division that has one or two dominant teams with a bunch of patsies, the other with a bunch of even teams who beat up on each other. When you move away from building a conference that highlights intra conference competitiveness, and move towards conferences aligning their teams in order to assure playoff participation…I don’t know. Probably overthinking it.

 

[Wexahu]

I assume the PAC’s two top cfp-ranked teams concept includes possibility of two teams from the same division. I can envision a division that has one or two dominant teams with a bunch of patsies, the other with a bunch of even teams who beat up on each other. When you move away from building a conference that highlights intra conference competitiveness, and move towards conferences aligning their teams in order to assure playoff participation…I don’t know. Probably overthinking it.

Theoretically, if you create divisions based on geography instead of competitiveness, I think over time the competitiveness part should even out. Dividing them up based on trying to put an equal number of good teams and bad teams in each division would seem to favor the historically good teams, wouldn't it?

I'm mostly in favor of doing it strictly by geography just because it makes the most sense. And then over time certain programs can separate themselves within that division if they do things right.

 

[Bob Sugar]

I believe Pac12, starting this season, has stopped having the two division champs meet in the CCG, rather will have the two highest CFP ranked teams play. I suppose this makes some sense, but some years it seems to me could be very awkward.

College Football Standings, 2023 season - ESPN

Visit ESPN for the complete 2023 NCAAF season standings. Includes league, conference and division standings for regular season and playoffs.

www.espn.com

Wow, that is weird. And Utah is #11 at 9-3, but UW is #12 at 10-2 and didn't play SC or Utah. So we get a Utah SC rematch.

EDIT: Those are the CFP rankings. Looks like UW is #9 and Utah is #12 in the AP and Coaches polls.

 

[Dogfrog]

College Football Standings, 2023 season - ESPN

Visit ESPN for the complete 2023 NCAAF season standings. Includes league, conference and division standings for regular season and playoffs.

www.espn.com

Wow, that is weird. And Utah is #11 at 9-3, but UW is #12 at 10-2 and didn't play SC or Utah. So we get a Utah SC rematch.

EDIT: Those are the CFP rankings. Looks like UW is #9 and Utah is #12 in the AP and Coaches polls.

Yea, the part I was missing is starting this season they dropped divisions, which makes more sense. It will be interesting to see how they rotate schedules going forward.

 

[PineyWoodsFrog]

I always opposed the Big 12 title game. No point when every team plays each other. I used this exact same scenario when adding a Big 12 title game was in the works. I said we will have a year where a team goes undefeated in Big 12 play and wins the league by multiple games and is forced into a meaningless title game.

I totally agree. It just poses a problem when 2 teams have identical records. Not that it would ever happen, but a conditional championship game would be the best thing in years where there is a tie.

 

[An-Cap Frog]

I believe Pac12, starting this season, has stopped having the two division champs meet in the CCG, rather will have the two highest CFP ranked teams play. I suppose this makes some sense, but some years it seems to me could be very awkward.

The tie-breaking process is complicated but H2H is first...

A detailed breakdown of why the 3-team Pac-12 championship game tiebreaker worked out in Utah’s favor

Utah will face USC in the Pac-12 championship game. Here’s the math on how the Utes won the three-team tiebreaker over Oregon and Washington.

www.deseret.com