I said:

for football don't have fixed divisions. Instead of fixed divisions, have the divisions get reshuffled every year by having the two division champions pick the teams in their division one at a time

don't know why they didn't have a choice for add Rutgers and Maryland both in the east and move Illinois to the west

cd2007 wrote: Inner-Outer is better than East-West.

There isn't a good solution, but as long as East-West isn't the division then I am fine with it.

Ibethagreatone wrote: No divisions.  

10 Conference Games.

1-2 Protected Rivalry Games

The true #1 vs #2 face off in the conference championship with tiebreakers (Head to Head, Overall Record, Last time they've been to the CCG, average ranking in the coaches/AP pool)


Or when we go to 16 schools, 4 divisions with a 4 team playoff at the end of the season to determine the conference champion (with 3 other super conferences to follow, and we end up with a quasi 16 school playoff).

I would love this as well.  Pretty much the ideal scenario.
Unfortunately the NCAA requires divisions to hold a Conference Champion$hip Game.

I do expect 4 divisions of 4/5 following the subsequent rounds of expansion as you suggested.

i think this is the worst possible scenario.

with 10 conference games and no divisions you could have a NW circa 1995/1996 almost every year, ie a team who is tied possibly 3 or 4 ways for first who gets in to the CCG without playing any of the other top teams.

there would be3 teams every year you wouldnt play,

assuming this is a bit random while trying to protect rivalries a team like NW could go 9-1 in conference an not play OSU, Wisky and UM, while those 3 teams all bumped each other off because they did play each other and each was the others only loss, (OSU beat UM, UM beat Wisky, Wisky beat OSU), but NW lost to Nebraska who lost 2 games, so a 4 way tie for first,,,,

so who belongs, NW????

maybe if we use "last time there" or "highest poll rank" as criteria

no thanks,

if we are going to have 14 team, we need divisions

i would be all in favor of your scenario if we have only 10 teams still, play all 9 teams, no misses and top 2 in CCG, but the scenario of 4 or even more teams tied for first????

RidgeRoadRattler wrote:

Ibethagreatone wrote: No divisions.  

10 Conference Games.

1-2 Protected Rivalry Games

The true #1 vs #2 face off in the conference championship with tiebreakers (Head to Head, Overall Record, Last time they've been to the CCG, average ranking in the coaches/AP pool)


Or when we go to 16 schools, 4 divisions with a 4 team playoff at the end of the season to determine the conference champion (with 3 other super conferences to follow, and we end up with a quasi 16 school playoff).

I would love this as well.  Pretty much the ideal scenario.
Unfortunately the NCAA requires divisions to hold a Conference Champion$hip Game.

I do expect 4 divisions of 4/5 following the subsequent rounds of expansion as you suggested.

Why do say,"when there's clearly more intrigue having them as a protected rival in the other division," because it is not clearly more intriguing, as a matter of fact it makes it so that most years beating TSUN will never have to opportunity to keep them out of the CCG.

Also with SCUM in the same division we have a chance to keep them out of the CCG each year. To me this is much more intriguing.

CalBayBuckeye wrote: Not sure why everyone is insisting that TTUN be in our division when there's clearly more intrigue having them as a protected rival in the other division.  

jpfbuck wrote: i think this is the worst possible scenario.

with 10 conference games and no divisions you could have a NW circa 1995/1996 almost every year, ie a team who is tied possibly 3 or 4 ways for first who gets in to the CCG without playing any of the other top teams.

there would be3 teams every year you wouldnt play,

assuming this is a bit random while trying to protect rivalries a team like NW could go 9-1 in conference an not play OSU, Wisky and UM, while those 3 teams all bumped each other off because they did play each other and each was the others only loss, (OSU beat UM, UM beat Wisky, Wisky beat OSU), but NW lost to Nebraska who lost 2 games, so a 4 way tie for first,,,,

so who belongs, NW????

maybe if we use "last time there" or "highest poll rank" as criteria

no thanks,

if we are going to have 14 team, we need divisions

i would be all in favor of your scenario if we have only 10 teams still, play all 9 teams, no misses and top 2 in CCG, but the scenario of 4 or even more teams tied for first????

RidgeRoadRattler wrote:

Ibethagreatone wrote: No divisions.  

10 Conference Games.

1-2 Protected Rivalry Games

The true #1 vs #2 face off in the conference championship with tiebreakers (Head to Head, Overall Record, Last time they've been to the CCG, average ranking in the coaches/AP pool)


Or when we go to 16 schools, 4 divisions with a 4 team playoff at the end of the season to determine the conference champion (with 3 other super conferences to follow, and we end up with a quasi 16 school playoff).

I would love this as well.  Pretty much the ideal scenario.
Unfortunately the NCAA requires divisions to hold a Conference Champion$hip Game.

I do expect 4 divisions of 4/5 following the subsequent rounds of expansion as you suggested.

Is a scenario where a 3-loss team wins a division and backs into the CCG to play 12-0 Michigan while Ohio State sits at 11-1 any better?  Ask the Big 12.

2004: 4-4 Colorado played 8-0 Oklahoma (7-1 Texas stayed at home)
2005: 5-3 Colorado played 8-0 Texas (6-2 TT and 6-2 Oklahoma stayed at home)
2008: 5-3 Missouri played 7-1 Oklahoma (7-1 Texas and 7-1 TT stayed at home)

Unfortunately CCG are nothing more than an excuse for more $ and often penalize the team who performed the best in the conference regular season while rewarding the team that finished third (e.g. Alabama in 2011)