Alabama has played UT-Chattanooga 3 times since 2008

[7Samurai13]

Ha ha...like I said before, it's been 10 years since the scenario about Michigan and Ohio State happened, so I do realize it is presumptuous to assume they will be top two next season, but according to recruiting rankings, I'd bet that Vegas has it pretty highly likely to happen in the next 2-3 seasons. Anything can happen, but I wouldn't bet against it.

The best thing for the conference is whatever makes the most money. There can be rematches, but the teams that are more likely to get favorable treatment from the B1G when it comes to playoffs are going to be Michigan and Ohio State. They just are ratings juggernauts right now. So having them play back to back games would be a horrible idea, if you can keep it from happening. I'm not sure why you think getting rid of divisions would help the conference more than having divisions, but I contend that the potential of having your two biggest teams play twice in a season is not good...if you can avoid it. They can avoid it, and should IMO. Let them play a second time in the playoffs, if they have to meet again. Playing twice in a season BEFORE the playoffs would hurt the B1G's chances of getting two playoff teams IMO.

I'm sure the BigTen lost millions of dollars in 2011 when MSU played Wisconsin twice or 2012 when Nebraska played Wisconsin twice. What will make the BigTen more money, doing their best to make sure the top two teams are playing for the conference title, which once every 20 years may include the two biggest names in the conference playing twice (which bring in a shit load more money than Penn State vs Wisconsin) or possibly allowing an inferior team into the title game just so we can protect one rivalry game?

 

[belcherboy]

I'm sure the BigTen lost millions of dollars in 2011 when MSU played Wisconsin twice or 2012 when Nebraska played Wisconsin twice.

If they would have had the playoffs in 2011, then it could have hurt the conference, but I can't remember if both teams were ranked in the top 5 when they played the 2nd time.

What will make the BigTen more money, doing their best to make sure the top two teams are playing for the conference title, which once every 20 years may include the two biggest names in the conference playing twice (which bring in a shit load more money than Penn State vs Wisconsin) or possibly allowing an inferior team into the title game just so we can protect one rivalry game?

That's not true. Having two playoff teams will ALWAYS be more financially beneficial to the conference than having one team, and having them play twice in a season could significantly hurt this from happening IMO.

Again, you can't make it a perfect system, but I think you don't want your top two teams playing 2 times in a season for a conference championship. You want them playing each other twice in a season in a playoff game. If you can protect them from playing twice before the playoffs, I think you do it and I think the financial math agrees with me.

Now if they expand it to 8-16 team playoffs...then it really doesn't matter then. With a 4 team playoff, I think it does.

 

[SJ76]

Think Michigan should focus on beating that shitty Sec East team in week 1 in Dallas.


The SEC West in the last 5 years has been the best conference in football. You can cry bout UT Chattybangbang and Georgia all you want but BAMA leads off every year against a ranked team from another conference and they hold their own in a 4 game playoff at the end.

Last year wasn't the best year for the SEC West, but hell look at the previous 4+. Usually LSU is stout and there's always a wildcard - Auburn, Miss St, A&M. I wouldn't want to play in that conference. East sure but not the West.


Crybabies gotta cry I guess

 

[7Samurai13]

If they would have had the playoffs in 2011, then it could have hurt the conference, but I can't remember if both teams were ranked in the top 5 when they played the 2nd time.



That's not true. Having two playoff teams will ALWAYS be more financially beneficial to the conference than having one team.

Again, you can't make it a perfect system, but you want your top two teams playing 2 times ina season for a conference championship. You want them playing each other twice in a season in a playoff game. If you can protect that from happening, I think you do it and I think the financial math agrees with me.

We have not had two teams from conference yet and we saw what happened when one conference tried to do it, both teams were left out. So until we we start seeing it happen, you are just reaching. Having the best two teams play for the title will bring the most eyes. Having a three loss team in there because of a weak division isn't going to draw much attention. I would rather guarantee a spot in the playoffs rather than take a chance that no one makes it.

 

[belcherboy]

We have not had two teams from conference yet and we saw what happened when one conference tried to do it, both teams were left out. So until we we start seeing it happen, you are just reaching. Having the best two teams play for the title will bring the most eyes. Having a three loss team in there because of a weak division isn't going to draw much attention. I would rather guarantee a spot in the playoffs rather than take a chance that no one makes it.

But no conference does it that way. If it is such a slam dunk for money and ratings, why doesn't the ACC (FSU and Clemson have been the best the past few year), or the SEC (Alabama, LSU, Auburn have been the best in conference for nearly a decade now) do it? There is no proof that numbers would be significantly better if the conference was a free for all. The playoffs is the prize. The conference championship is a way to get there, but as proven by Ohio State last year, it was secondary to making the playoffs, as they weren't even B1G champs.

Maybe I'm viewing it wrong though.

Alabama fans...would you rather see the SEC get rid of divisions with the possibility that you could meet Auburn twice in a season (outside the playoffs)? Do you think it would make the conference better or make it more difficult for the top teams to make the playoffs?

What about you OSU fans?? (who am I kidding...I don't care what OSU fans think!)

 

[4down20]

It's DEFINITELY been that way for a decade now! I think the last time this scenario would have played out was 2006 (#1 OSU vs #2 Michigan). Hopefully a decade of Ohio State tanking can begin soon...but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

If a rematch is to happen, then it's probably for a good reason and would be a hell of a game.

I'm fine with having to play Auburn two weeks in a row. Beats the shit outta 2013.

 

[belcherboy]

If a rematch is to happen, then it's probably for a good reason and would be a hell of a game.

I'm fine with having to play Auburn two weeks in a row. Beats the shit outta 2013.

Then I'm probably over thinking it. Samurai...I concede!

But you have to admit 4down20...that national championship game made the SEC a TON of money...having two teams in it! Also, it would be A LOT harder to have a scenario like 2013 with a 4 team playoff.

 

[7Samurai13]

But no conference does it that way. If it is such a slam dunk for money and ratings, why doesn't the ACC (FSU and Clemson have been the best the past few year), or the SEC (Alabama, LSU, Auburn have been the best) do it? There is no proof that numbers would be significantly better if the conference was a free for all. The playoffs is the prize. The conference championship is a way to get there, but as proven by Ohio State last year, it was secondary to making the playoffs, as they weren't even B1G champs.

Maybe I'm viewing it wrong though.

Alabama fans...would you rather see the SEC get rid of divisions with the possibility that you could meet Auburn twice in a season (outside the playoffs)? Do you think it would make the conference better or make it more difficult for the top teams to make the playoffs?

And there used to be no proof that having a conference championship game would help you win a national title, I'm glad that somebody got the balls to do that. There was no proof that having a playoff would make more money over just a championship game, glad we did that. Somebody has to actually try it and see how it works. Using your logic, there is no proof that intentionally preventing your top two teams play each other will help you get two into the playoffs, nobody has ever done it. I'd rather be bold and try and be proactive rather than just missing teams and going 4-6 years between games with a "conference member"

 

[Deep Creek]

Also, the B1G has gotten 2 playoff teams a few times already.

Maybe I was asleep. I don't recall any conference getting 2 CFP teams yet.

2016
CLemson
Bama
Ohio State
Washington

2015
Bama
Clemson
Michigan State
Oklahoma

2014
Ohio State
Oregon
Bama
Florida State

 

[4down20]

Then I'm probably over thinking it. Samurai...I concede!

But you have to admit 4down20...that national championship game made the SEC a TON of money...having two teams in it! Also, it would be A LOT harder to have a scenario like 2013 with a 4 team playoff.

2011 was when Alabama and LSU played in the rematch. That would have also been fixed if the SEC had taken the top 2 teams and put them in the SECCG.

2013 was when Auburn beat us with the "kick six" play at the end of the game. They went on to play Florida St for the national championship and we got stuck playing in the Sugar Bowl. If it was top2 teams, we would have gotten a rematch in the SECCG.

 

[belcherboy]

Maybe I was asleep. I don't recall any conference getting 2 CFP teams yet.

2016
CLemson
Bama
Ohio State
Washington

2015
Bama
Clemson
Michigan State
Oklahoma

2014
Ohio State
Oregon
Bama
Florida State

I didn't even realize I typed that. Thanks for the correction.

 

[belcherboy]

2011 was when Alabama and LSU played in the rematch. That would have also been fixed if the SEC had taken the top 2 teams and put them in the SECCG.

2013 was when Auburn beat us with the "kick six" play at the end of the game. They went on to play Florida St for the national championship and we got stuck playing in the Sugar Bowl. If it was top2 teams, we would have gotten a rematch in the SECCG.

True, but that 2nd game against Auburn would not have mattered if the 4 team playoff where in place. I would think you would rather have a guaranteed spot in the playoffs than have to play another game against Auburn to get in. I'm assuming you guys were still in the top 4 that year (I can't really remember).

 

[Deep Creek]

If it was top2 teams, we would have gotten a rematch in the SECCG.

And it would have been the very next week. No way around that unless rivalry games are moved from the last regular season date. That being said, any two teams could conceivably play each other in consecutive weeks at the end of the year if they are the best two. Not ideal but a hell of a lot better than having divisons and not playing a conference member for a decade or so! JMO

 

[7Samurai13]

And it would have been the very next week. No way around that unless rivalry games are moved from the last regular season date. That being said, any two teams could conceivably play each other in consecutive weeks at the end of the year if they are the best two. Not ideal but a hell of a lot better than having divisons and not playing a conference member for a decade or so! JMO

And it's conceivable two teams to play consecutive weeks with divisions.

 

[belcherboy]

And it would have been the very next week. No way around that unless rivalry games are moved from the last regular season date. That being said, any two teams could conceivably play each other in consecutive weeks at the end of the year if they are the best two. Not ideal but a hell of a lot better than having divisons and not playing a conference member for a decade or so! JMO

Yeah, IMO it's just the downside of having 16 team conferences. I think you can still keep the divisions (7 division games), have 2 cross division games, and 3 OOC games to get to 12 games. I'm sure if it were profitable enough, the NCAA could move to a 13-14 game schedule, that could accomodate another 1-2 cross division games.

I'd get over it if they got rid of divisions in college football though!

 

[4down20]

True, but that 2nd game against Auburn would not have mattered if the 4 team playoff where in place. I would think you would rather have a guaranteed spot in the playoffs than have to play another game against Auburn to get in. I'm assuming you guys were still in the top 4 that year (I can't really remember).

Maybe, but why delay what is fixable by the conferences?

It's basically a way of expanding the playoffs without expanding the playoffs.

 

[7Samurai13]

Yeah, IMO it's just the downside of having 16 team conferences. I think you can still keep the divisions (7 division games), have 2 cross division games, and 3 OOC games to get to 12 games. I'm sure if it were profitable enough, the NCAA could move to a 13-14 game schedule, that could accomodate another 1-2 cross division games.

I'd get over it if they got rid of divisions in college football though!

Wait, what? Weren't you just arguing to keep divisions for the sole purpose of preventing Ohio State and Michigan rematch?

 

[7Samurai13]

Maybe, but why delay what is fixable by the conferences?

It's basically a way of expanding the playoffs without expanding the playoffs.

Plus you get another chance to knock Auburn out of the playoffs.

 

[4down20]

Plus you get another chance to knock Auburn out of the playoffs.

 

[belcherboy]

Maybe, but why delay what is fixable by the conferences?

It's basically a way of expanding the playoffs without expanding the playoffs.

But there will still be inequity among schedules, so why change what is working well?

Some rivalries in conference will always happen every year, while other teams get an easier path without those rivalries. If you want to shuffle some teams around in conference divisions, than I could see doing that before scraping the entire thing. I don't like ideas that can mess with rivalry games.

Again, I'm probably overthinking it though!