CC Game Format Will Change

[BigdaddyQH]

Now that the powers that be have decided to allow each conference to determine how they select their teams to play in the CC game, the MWC is discussing a change that will allow the two best teams to play in their CC game, instead of the divisional winners. The move makes sense. Last year, Boise State defeated Colorado State and won the MWC Mountain Division. Both teams ended the regular season with two losses. Had the MWC been allowed to determine who plays in their CC game, these two teams would have met in a rematch. Instead, Boise State played a 6 loss Fresno State in the CC game, also a rematch. Fresno State finished the season at 6-8.

This move by the MWC is still under discussion, but seems to be the wave of the future for all FBS Conferences. It makes sense. If the best team in the conference (at the time) loses to a 6-7 team, that conference can forget about a playoff spot, but if the best team (at the time) loses to another one loss, or a two loss team, they still could be in the hunt. This is just another move to get the best teams into the best bowl games and the playoffs. Comments.

 

[RunLeeRun]

I dont think the SEC would do it, and perhaps the Big Ten would hesitate, since both have lopsided divisions. Thinking a la 2011 when LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma st and pac 12 team would have been final 4. LSU-Bama rematch cuts their odds in half.

 

[TyBounce]

I dont really care one way or another how conferences determine who plays in ccg's , but they need to do away with divisions if they are going to choose 2 teams from the same division. The divisional format effects scheduling , so they need to just be 1 conference and not 2 divisions.

I would also add , be careful what you wish for. What if Ohio St had played Mich St (again) instead of Wisconsin and lost ? The Big-10 would'nt have gotten a team in the playoff.

 

[BigdaddyQH]

The huge problems with getting rid of divisions is getting rid of all of those yearly wars. Just look at what the Pac 12 had to do. They had to guarantee both Stanford and Cal that they would continue their series against SC and UCLA and alternate home games with each team. Now put every conference in that position. It would never work. What I would do is make the Division Champs meet in the CC game unless one division champ has lost 3 games or more overall. In 2012, a two loss USC team won the Pac 12 South, but were not permitted to play any post season games, so a 3 loss UCLA team played (and lost) Stanford. The CC game was one of two games in a row that those two teams played. UCLA lost them both. Meanwhile Oregon's only loss of the season was a 3 point loss against Stanford. If this rule were in place, Oregon would have met Stanford for a shot at the Pac 12 title. That is why I like this system.

 

[flashmo]

If they do that, why even bother with divisions?

 

[BigdaddyQH]

Again, for those of you who do not bother reading posts, they must continue Divisional play to ensure that certain meetings between two teams are guaranteed on a yearly basis. USC and UCLA vs Cal and Stanford. Ohio State vs Michigan. Alabama vs Tennessee, etc...

 

[Conan]

Now that the powers that be have decided to allow each conference to determine how they select their teams to play in the CC game, the MWC is discussing a change that will allow the two best teams to play in their CC game, instead of the divisional winners. The move makes sense. Last year, Boise State defeated Colorado State and won the MWC Mountain Division. Both teams ended the regular season with two losses. Had the MWC been allowed to determine who plays in their CC game, these two teams would have met in a rematch. Instead, Boise State played a 6 loss Fresno State in the CC game, also a rematch. Fresno State finished the season at 6-8.

This move by the MWC is still under discussion, but seems to be the wave of the future for all FBS Conferences. It makes sense. If the best team in the conference (at the time) loses to a 6-7 team, that conference can forget about a playoff spot, but if the best team (at the time) loses to another one loss, or a two loss team, they still could be in the hunt. This is just another move to get the best teams into the best bowl games and the playoffs. Comments.

Didn't UCLA win the Pac South when USC was declared ineligible for post season play -- possibly 2012?
They played in the CCG and of course had their asses handed to them... a la Neuheisel

Then the NCAA gave them a pass so they could play in a bowl game with a 6-7 record.
I believe they were and still are the only team to finish with 6-8 record on the year.

 

[BigdaddyQH]

Here is what happened in 2012. UCLA, a 3 loss team was chosen as the representative from the South because the Divisional Champion, who was USC, was ineligible for post season play. The week before the CC game, UCLA hosted Stanford in the Rose Bowl in a game that Stanford had to win. Stanford jumped off to a big lead, and coasted to a 35-17 win. The next week the two meet again, in Palo Alto before a sparse crowd and UCLA plays Stanford much closer, losing 27-24. Oregon, the runner up to Stanford, finished the season with just one loss, that to Stanford. Now you tell me. Which would have been the better game. Stanford vs a three loss UCLA team or Stanford vs a one loss Oregon team?

 

[BigdaddyQH]

Conan, the season you refer to was in 2011. Once again USC won the South but was not eligable to play in the CC game, so a 6 loss UCLA went instead. One of those losses was 50-0 vs USC. Oregon defeated Stanford and played UCLA in the CC game, which Oregon easily won. Oregon had two losses. Stanford, had only one loss (that to Oregon), so again we see a multiple loss team getting the nod over a one loss team.

 

[RunLeeRun]

What I would do is make the Division Champs meet in the CC game unless one division champ has lost 3 games or more overall.

I like that rule, but it couldn't be cut and dry. I think 4 losses would be the better number. There would have to be some side-rules, if it were for a 3 loss team, perhaps having a straight up loss to the opposite division 2nd place team, or possibly a losing crossover record. With the way some of the scheduling is, it's possible several 3 loss teams are part of the better division that just destroys itself and perhaps got nipped in a crossover game here and there but not to either of the top two team in the weaker division. 2015 Big Ten kind of sets up that way (beside the fact that OSU isn't losing 2 games let alone 3). Neither Wisconsin nor Iowa play vs Penn St, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St. What if those two West teams go 8-0 and 7-1 and the best East team still loses 3 games? That wouldn't sit well that Wisconsin and Iowa rematched in the title game.

 

[BigdaddyQH]

You know as well as I do that this will not happen. First, Wisconsin will lose to Alabama, and Iowa will be lucky to defeat Iowa State. Sure, anything can happen, but we must try to keep this realistic. Any team with 3 losses has no chance at getting into the playoffs and we all know this. There are always 8-10 teams with two or less losses every season.

 

[CoachCB]

The SEC needs to send the team w/ the best record within their Division to the SECCG, not best overall record; i.e. if a team goes 6-0 vs. the West, and 0-2 vs. the East to finish w/ a 6-2 Conference record they should represent their Division (even if another team goes 7-1 overall, w/ that 1 loss being to the 6-0 team in their Division). With the rotating schedules you get teams playing a softer non-Division schedule (i.e. a team plays Vandy & Kentucky, while another team plays UF & UGA).

 

[RunLeeRun]

You know as well as I do that this will not happen. First, Wisconsin will lose to Alabama, and Iowa will be lucky to defeat Iowa State. Sure, anything can happen, but we must try to keep this realistic. Any team with 3 losses has no chance at getting into the playoffs and we all know this. There are always 8-10 teams with two or less losses every season.

You are confusing OOC games with conference games. The theme is CC game. You should know, it's your thread.