Pac-12 changes conference title game qualifiers after NCAA relaxes restrictions

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,633
9,843
1
Now it will not be divisional champions playing one another but rather the two teams with the best winning percentage.

The ACC is apparently also thinking about a change while SEC stands pat.

You wonder about the B1G, what with the league being so top-heavy in the East. Then again, if the criterion had been best winning percentages or highest ranking last year, there would have been an Ohio State - Michigan rematch in Indianapolis, and I doubt the conference would like that. Michigan certainly wouldn't have:

 
  • Like
Reactions: NedFromYork

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,167
56,027
1
Now it will not be divisional champions playing one another but rather the two teams with the best winning percentage.

The ACC is apparently also thinking about a change while SEC stands pat.

You wonder about the B1G, what with the league being so top-heavy in the East. Then again, if the criterion had been best winning percentages or highest ranking last year, there would have been an Ohio State - Michigan rematch in Indianapolis, and I doubt the conference would like that. Michigan certainly wouldn't have:

Just a matter of time until the B1G does the same. The two conferences have been horribly unbalanced with two decent teams in the west (Iowa and Wiscy) while the East has tOSU, PSU, UM, and Sparty. This allows the B1G to preserve the all important tOSU/UM game and fix the imbalance.
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,633
9,843
1
Just a matter of time until the B1G does the same. The two conferences have been horribly unbalanced with two decent teams in the west (Iowa and Wiscy) while the East has tOSU, PSU, UM, and Sparty. This allows the B1G to preserve the all important tOSU/UM game and fix the imbalance.

Agreed.

The problem with such a set-up last year would have been two-fold: it would have detracted from the sacred, mystical significance -- <gag> --- of the Ohio State-Michigan game in that the contest would have been correctly seen as a likely warm-up for the following week's title match-up; and it would be asking a lot of either team to beat the other in consecutive weeks..meaning that the loser of the first game might actually go into the second with an advantage.

Another question that occurs to me is that if the divisional champs don't play one another in the league title game, then why have divisions at all? Personally, I'd love for the B1G to ditch them and move to a different scheduling plan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obliviax

PSUSignore

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,529
4,509
1
This puts a ton of emphasis on fair and balanced scheduling if a conference has too many members for a full round robin schedule. I have little confidence the Big 10 would get that part right. If they do go that route, they need to stop building schedules decades in advance and create them annually for the upcoming season.
 

psu00

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2010
23,952
11,824
1
This puts a ton of emphasis on fair and balanced scheduling if a conference has too many members for a full round robin schedule. I have little confidence the Big 10 would get that part right. If they do go that route, they need to stop building schedules decades in advance and create them annually for the upcoming season.
Yep. If they just go best winning percentage like the PAC there’s still a problem in the Big with the lopsided divisions. Easier to get a better win percentage in the west compared to the east division.

If they’re heading toward a super conference then best to get the ball rolling now. Cut the league down to 9 or 10 teams and do a round robin schedule. ;)
 

Cowbell Man

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2002
4,494
4,051
1
Now it will not be divisional champions playing one another but rather the two teams with the best winning percentage.

The ACC is apparently also thinking about a change while SEC stands pat.

You wonder about the B1G, what with the league being so top-heavy in the East. Then again, if the criterion had been best winning percentages or highest ranking last year, there would have been an Ohio State - Michigan rematch in Indianapolis, and I doubt the conference would like that. Michigan certainly wouldn't have:

Rematches seem to have no ill effect on the SEC.
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,633
9,843
1
Rematches seem to have no ill effect on the SEC.

The main argument in favor of the change, and this applies in spades to the Pac-12, is the fact that the divisional set-up often leaves the actual 2nd-best team in the league shut out of the title game. Many years the same is true for the B1G.

My only point about rematches was to say the B1G has conferred mythical status on the season-ending Ohio State-Michigan game, which in the eyes of the league may argue against the kind of change being implemented by the Pac-12 (and soon possibly the ACC). Yet another example of the B1G serving the interests of its two Sacred Cows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,633
9,843
1
Yep. If they just go best winning percentage like the PAC there’s still a problem in the Big with the lopsided divisions. Easier to get a better win percentage in the west compared to the east division.

If they’re heading toward a super conference then best to get the ball rolling now. Cut the league down to 9 or 10 teams and do a round robin schedule. ;)

Haha! Yeah, cutting the league down ain't in the cards.

You eliminate the problem with the lopsided balance of power by ditching divisions and moving to a different system of scheduling.

I totally agree with Signore above that the conference would not "get that right." Then again, it doesn't get anything right. So personally, I'd rather take a chance that they'll get that less wrong than what they've already gotten wrong.
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2007
2,745
1,395
1
If you go with two best teams facing off, then you eliminate divisions and play a more round robin schedule over time (probably something like 3-4 "fixed rivals" you play every season and rotate through all the other teams so you play them more frequently.

They obviously wouldn't keep divisions if you are going to a format that doesn't pit division champions.
 

Cowbell Man

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2002
4,494
4,051
1
The main argument in favor of the change, and this applies in spades to the Pac-12, is the fact that the divisional set-up often leaves the actual 2nd-best team in the league shut out of the title game. Many years the same is true for the B1G.

My only point about rematches was to say the B1G has conferred mythical status on the season-ending Ohio State-Michigan game, which in the eyes of the league may argue against the kind of change being implemented by the Pac-12 (and soon possibly the ACC). Yet another example of the B1G serving the interests of its two Sacred Cows.
Ah yes. Agreed.
 

PSUSignore

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,529
4,509
1
If you go with two best teams facing off, then you eliminate divisions and play a more round robin schedule over time (probably something like 3-4 "fixed rivals" you play every season and rotate through all the other teams so you play them more frequently.

They obviously wouldn't keep divisions if you are going to a format that doesn't pit division champions.
The only 100% fair way to do it without divisions is a full round robin in a single season which is impossible in a large conference like the Big 10. An extreme example using the top 2 win percentage teams... what if in one season PSU plays OSU, UM, MSU, Wisconsin and Iowa and loses twice. Meanwhile say someone like Wisconsin plays PSU only and avoids the rest, and finishes with one loss only to PSU. OSU goes undefeated and finishes first, and didn't play Wisconsin. PSU finishes 3rd, misses the chance to even play for the conference title despite beating the #2 team and having a significantly harder schedule.

There's no subjectivity when it comes to the win percentages, but there is tons of it in terms of how you pick protected "rivalry" games and make the schedules. Get it wrong and you give some teams a massive advantage.
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,633
9,843
1
The only 100% fair way to do it without divisions is a full round robin in a single season which is impossible in a large conference like the Big 10. An extreme example using the top 2 win percentage teams... what if in one season PSU plays OSU, UM, MSU, Wisconsin and Iowa and loses twice. Meanwhile say someone like Wisconsin plays PSU only and avoids the rest, and finishes with one loss only to PSU. OSU goes undefeated and finishes first, and didn't play Wisconsin. PSU finishes 3rd, misses the chance to even play for the conference title despite beating the #2 team and having a significantly harder schedule.

There's no subjectivity when it comes to the win percentages, but there is tons of it in terms of how you pick protected "rivalry" games and make the schedules. Get it wrong and you give some teams a massive advantage.

I agree with your basic point.

The question is whether it's "right" now with, arguably, the four best teams in the conference being in one division and the West champion getting beaten every year -- now eight in a row -- as better teams watch on television.

The record suggests this is good for Ohio State and the West Division. But for Penn State: not so much.
 

Wallace Breen

Well-Known Member
Mar 11, 2016
1,582
992
1
I think this is really just a set up for the next round of conference realignment after the power five schools separate from the rest of D1 and start making their own rules. This is the bridge to the future, not some permanent path. The economics and rules are favoring regional super conferences broken into sub-conferences and the removal of traditional conference championship games and perhaps expansion of the regular season.
 

McCloudersportLion

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2019
2,751
1,629
1
Just a matter of time until the B1G does the same. The two conferences have been horribly unbalanced with two decent teams in the west (Iowa and Wiscy) while the East has tOSU, PSU, UM, and Sparty. This allows the B1G to preserve the all important tOSU/UM game and fix the imbalance.

Big Ten wouldn't want Michigan and Ohio St. playing back to back as 1 and 2 or then again maybe they would. The imbalance has actually helped propel the east champ with a blow out eyeball resume like in 2014 Ohio State vs Wisconsin.
 

Agoodnap

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2015
3,233
4,577
1
The second highest winning percentage isn't the same as an "eye" test that many are proposing. Eye tests need to be eliminated completely. What's wrong with a 7-5 team, winning their conference championship game and therefore has the opportunity to play for and win an NC?
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2007
2,745
1,395
1
The second highest winning percentage isn't the same as an "eye" test that many are proposing. Eye tests need to be eliminated completely. What's wrong with a 7-5 team, winning their conference championship game and therefore has the opportunity to play for and win an NC?

Because that team had a mediocre season and doesn't deserve to be playing for a championship?

I'll never understand why people are so willing to minimize the value of the regular season (in any sport) to just favor a smaller series of games at the end of the season. College football was so much better before it got infected with playoff crap.