ACC approves grant of media rights through 2026-2027

[milohimself]

I'd be careful what I wish for.

Florida is 93-13 inside the division since 1992.

If they're winning it on the field, then it is what it is

 

[milohimself]

When the conference championship format cannot guarantee that the two best teams in that conference will play each other each time, that is a substantial loss of credibility. How could any CCG fully qualify as a true semi-final game. Conference championship games are often nothing more then tits on a bull.

Good post. The brief period where the PAC-10 was playing a round robin was glorious.

 

[bamawriter]

In the 21 years of the SECCG, how many times has cross-division record decided who won the division? Without looking it up I know that 2011 USCe went undefeated in the East but UGA went to Atlanta.

 

[milohimself]

In the 21 years of the SECCG, how many times has cross-division record decided who won the division? Without looking it up I know that 2011 USCe went undefeated in the East but UGA went to Atlanta.

That's a good example right there. I think SCjr was the better team but UGA took the division because they lucked out with cross-divisional draws.

 

[bamawriter]

That's a good example right there. I think SCjr was the better team but UGA took the division because they lucked out with cross-divisional draws.

There are very few instances where your proposal would have altered the outcome, aside from the previously mentioned 2011:

In 2002, 8-4 Florida would have gotten in over 11-1 UGA.

In 2007, 9-3 Florida would have made it over 9-3 UT.

In '97 and '01 it would have forced ties, but UT would have won both tiebreakers, so history remains unaltered. Same goes for UGA in '05.

That's it.

So it's only mattered 3 times in 21 years, and in one of those ('02) it would have resulted in an inferior team getting in. I'm not seeing the issue.

 

[BlueHalo]

To represent your division, why shouldn't your divisional record be the primary factor? Use the cross-division record to settle the tie breaker?

 

[bamawriter]

To represent your division, why shouldn't your divisional record be the primary factor? Use the cross-division record to settle the tie breaker?

Teams should have the ability to help eliminate the possibility of a rematch.

Say UT beat Bama in a close game in Tuscaloosa. Would you not be bummed if Bama beat UT in Atlanta because the first game didn't count?

 

[milohimself]

There are very few instances where your proposal would have altered the outcome, aside from the previously mentioned 2011:

In 2002, 8-4 Florida would have gotten in over 11-1 UGA.

In 2007, 9-3 Florida would have made it over 9-3 UT.

In '97 and '01 it would have forced ties, but UT would have won both tiebreakers, so history remains unaltered. Same goes for UGA in '05.

That's it.

So it's only mattered 3 times in 21 years, and in one of those ('02) it would have resulted in an inferior team getting in. I'm not seeing the issue.

So what? That it's happened at all is too much.

And this is coming from a UT supporter (me), implicitly defending SCjr, and even worse, saying that UF should have made a conference title game instead of us. But they did beat the snot out of us and should have been the ones in Atlanta.

Since the SEC has divisions, I think it's safe to presume the purpose of the conference title game is to pit the best team from each division against one another in order to determine the conference's best team. Thus, the most logical way to determine each division's best team is to use divisional records.

Using overall conference record is apples to oranges, since a full quarter of the conference schedule will vary from team to team within the division. There's zero logic behind the current setup.

 

[milohimself]

Teams should have the ability to help eliminate the possibility of a rematch.

Say UT beat Bama in a close game in Tuscaloosa. Would you not be bummed if Bama beat UT in Atlanta because the first game didn't count?

Rematches happen. Short of eliminating divisions and conference championships altogether, there's no avoiding it.

Hell, even if you do, there are still instances of that happening... Your 2012 title is proof.

If rematches cannot be avoided, then you're back at square 1... Divisional record is the only format that makes sense.

 

[bamawriter]

So what? That it's happened at all is too much.

And this is coming from a UT supporter (me), implicitly defending SCjr, and even worse, saying that UF should have made a conference title game instead of us. But they did beat the snot out of us and should have been the ones in Atlanta.

Since the SEC has divisions, I think it's safe to presume the purpose of the conference title game is to pit the best team from each division against one another in order to determine the conference's best team. Thus, the most logical way to determine each division's best team is to use divisional records.

Using overall conference record is apples to oranges, since a full quarter of the conference schedule will vary from team to team within the division. There's zero logic behind the current setup.

Totally disagree. The more games that don't count makes it MORE likely that an inferior team will make the title game. Right now, at worst, an 8-4 team could get in over an 11-1 division opponent. If cross-division games don't count, turn that 8-4 team into a 6-6 division champ.

 

[milohimself]

I never said anything about superior/inferior teams.

Also, that 11-1 is not comparable to the 8-4 because they are different schedules. The three games difference could be, say, Oregon, Alabama and LSU vs. Kentucky and a couple patsies. Your point there has no validity.

The ONLY on the field solution is using divisional records.

The current system, as you're defending it, is totally arbitrary.

Allow me to turn the tables, and assume your logic here is valid.

Only one time, in 2002, does a team that you'd consider "inferior" make it to the title game because of a divisional record. If it only happens once, what's the big deal?

Having everybody play a schedule that differs by a whole quarter then choosing a winner from the group as if it's homologous is the height of stupidity.

 

[bamawriter]

I never said anything about superior/inferior teams.

You used the term "best team", and what is "best" if not superior to those that are not "best"?

Based on the rest of this post, I think you meant "most deserving." For example, Alabama was the best team in the west in 2011, but LSU was the most deserving of the SECCG berth.

Also, that 11-1 is not comparable to the 8-4 because they are different schedules. The three games difference could be, say, Oregon, Alabama and LSU vs. Kentucky and a couple patsies. Your point there has no validity

The ONLY on the field solution is using divisional records.

The current system, as you're defending it, is totally arbitrary.

Allow me to turn the tables, and assume your logic here is valid.

Only one time, in 2002, does a team that you'd consider "inferior" make it to the title game because of a divisional record. If it only happens once, what's the big deal?

But the converse has only happened twice. Is that much more significant than once? Is 9.5% of the time way more critical than 4.8%?

And I need to admit that my previous math was incorrect. Under your scenario a 5-7 team would be "more deserving" of the division crown than an 11-1 team as long as all five wins were in the division and one of those was over the 11-1 team. There is no way you can convince me that the 5-7 team is the "best" team in the division, no matter who the 7 losses were against. But you have presented a standard by which they would be the "most deserving".

Yes, there will arbitrary comparisons if you include cross-division games. But in your preferred set-up and mine, it comes down to good losses vs bad. I want to increase the opportunity for a bad loss. Your scenario makes half the season a potential good loss.

 

[ukvols]

16 teams and eight games would be better.
Four regional Pods of four teams each.

Rotate the Pods every two years. Two Pods=one Division.
One permanent opponent from another Pod.
One secondary opponent from another Pod to play when the permanent opponent rotates into your Division.
Play four teams annually: the other three in your Pod and the permanent opponent.
Play the secondary opponent four times every six years.
Play the other 10 teams twice each every six years.

The drawback would be playing some of our current rivals in the East only two times in six years, but we'd get at least one home-and-home with the entire conference in just a six-year-span.

 

[milohimself]

You used the term "best team", and what is "best" if not superior to those that are not "best"?

Based on the rest of this post, I think you meant "most deserving." For example, Alabama was the best team in the west in 2011, but LSU was the most deserving of the SECCG berth.

Sure. And for that particular part, they beat you on the field. The BCS rematch was extraneous to what happened in the conference.

But the converse has only happened twice. Is that much more significant than once? Is 9.5% of the time way more critical than 4.8%?

Then why did you bring up that point to begin with?

And I need to admit that my previous math was incorrect. Under your scenario a 5-7 team would be "more deserving" of the division crown than an 11-1 team as long as all five wins were in the division and one of those was over the 11-1 team. There is no way you can convince me that the 5-7 team is the "best" team in the division, no matter who the 7 losses were against. But you have presented a standard by which they would be the "most deserving".

Yes, there will arbitrary comparisons if you include cross-division games. But in your preferred set-up and mine, it comes down to good losses vs bad. I want to increase the opportunity for a bad loss. Your scenario makes half the season a potential good loss.

Under your scenario/current circumstances, separate games against completely different opponents are treated the same. Your scenario/current set up says that playing Florida and Georgia is the same as playing Vanderbilt and Kentucky. You are implicitly saying this. Now defend it.

 

[bamawriter]

Under your scenario/current circumstances, separate games against completely different opponents are treated the same. Your scenario/current set up says that playing Florida and Georgia is the same as playing Vanderbilt and Kentucky. You are implicitly saying this. Now defend it.

They are treated the same, but your preferred set-up doesn't eliminate unfairness. There have been numerous years that one could point to where one division was significantly stronger than the other. 2011 was a great example. Heading into the final week of the regular season, the Top 3 teams in the country were all from the SEC West. In situations like that, it's fundamentally unfair for a team to go through the grind of a tough division schedule, while their counterpart in the other division doesn't get the crap beaten out of them every week.

4 of the 5 worst teams in the conference, historically, are in the East. That's 57% of the division. I concede your point that playing Florida and Georgia does not equate to playing Vanderbilt and Kentucky. But in the interest of fairness, it would be freaking garbage that Bama would only get to count a schedule that includes five other teams in the top 9 of the conference with only MSU bringing up the rear at #14, while Tennessee gets to count 4 of the bottom 5. That is ridiculous. The only way that your proposed set-up works is if the divisions are completely re-aligned with only parity, and not geography, in mind.

So I agree with you that the current set-up allows for unbalanced schedules. I fully appreciate that. But only counting division games wouldn't automatically make everything balanced.

My desire is to do everything possible to make sure that the best teams represent their divisions in the SECCG. Counting cross-division games is, without a doubt, a more effective way to accomplish that goal. A six game margin of error is simply too much.

 

[ukvols]

They are treated the same, but your preferred set-up doesn't eliminate unfairness. There have been numerous years that one could point to where one division was significantly stronger than the other. 2011 was a great example. Heading into the final week of the regular season, the Top 3 teams in the country were all from the SEC West. In situations like that, it's fundamentally unfair for a team to go through the grind of a tough division schedule, while their counterpart in the other division doesn't get the crap beaten out of them every week.

4 of the 5 worst teams in the conference, historically, are in the East. That's 57% of the division. I concede your point that playing Florida and Georgia does not equate to playing Vanderbilt and Kentucky. But in the interest of fairness, it would be freaking garbage that Bama would only get to count a schedule that includes five other teams in the top 9 of the conference with only MSU bringing up the rear at #14, while Tennessee gets to count 4 of the bottom 5. That is ridiculous. The only way that your proposed set-up works is if the divisions are completely re-aligned with only parity, and not geography, in mind.

So I agree with you that the current set-up allows for unbalanced schedules. I fully appreciate that. But only counting division games wouldn't automatically make everything balanced.

My desire is to do everything possible to make sure that the best teams represent their divisions in the SECCG. Counting cross-division games is, without a doubt, a more effective way to accomplish that goal. A six game margin of error is simply too much.

FWIW, since Bama and UT are in different divisions, that example of unfairness is irrelevant.

 

[bamawriter]

FWIW, since Bama and UT are in different divisions, that example of unfairness is irrelevant.

If the division champs get to play for the SEC title, then it's absurdly unfair. Teams in the East would have an easier path to the title than teams in the West.

 

[TrueOrange]

9 games is a must at 14. I would have prefered 8 games at 16.

They might as well move to 9 in the near future, though, all the rest of major conferences not-named ACC are doing it (and theirs might be more of a...I don't know 8.5 setup with the 5 rotating Notre dame games...also, slightly off, but did they ever end up reaching some alliance deal with the Big 12 and scheduling?); even the smaller conferences like the new America's whatever are set to play 9

 

[milohimself]

If the division champs get to play for the SEC title, then it's absurdly unfair. Teams in the East would have an easier path to the title than teams in the West.

What you have is an excellent argument against conference championship games.

One division being much worse than the other isn't going to change the fact that one of them is still going to the conference championship game. You're worried about the possibility of a .500 or lower team being able to make a conference title game; that can already happen. Counting cross-divisonal games does absolutely nothing to change that. The only thing it accomplishes is comparing teams with different schedules on the same basis.

You still haven't presented a coherent argument as to why the current format is necessary.

 

[bamawriter]

What you have is an excellent argument against conference championship games.

One division being much worse than the other isn't going to change the fact that one of them is still going to the conference championship game. You're worried about the possibility of a .500 or lower team being able to make a conference title game; that can already happen. Counting cross-divisonal games does absolutely nothing to change that.

You are misrepresenting my issue. I'm not concerned with the fact that a team with a losing record could make the championship game; like you said, that is already a possibility. My issue is that, by only counting divisional games, each team has a six game margin of error between two teams in the same division. If half the season is irrelevant to the title race, then you can't make an argument that you are trying to determine the best team. The more games that matter, the more likely that the best team will flesh itself out.

The only thing it accomplishes is comparing teams with different schedules on the same basis.

No, what I'm in favor of is allowing for the possibility of establishing parity between the schedules in the conference. I will fully admit that your set-up is perfect for determining a division champ. It is terrible for determining a conference champ, and in the end, isn't that the point? Yes, Bama lucks out by getting Kentucky and UT this year, while LSU gets UF and UGA. But it helps level us off with a team like UGA, who also gets UK and UT. In the end, you're competing for the conference, and winning the division is simply a means to an end.

What you have is an excellent argument against conference championship games.

I think my argument is for acting like one conference rather than two conferences with an OOC scheduling agreement. The only way to remove any arbitrary determination of a champion would be to play a 13 game round robin, but that's never going to happen.

But, as the divisions currently stand, the best team in the East has the much easier road. Just using Bama and Tennessee as examples (because they are historically the best teams in each division and 1 and 2 in the conference), under your plan they would have the following teams (ranked by winning pct) to beat each year:

Bama: #3, #6, #7, #8, #9, #14 (Avg 7.8)
UT: #4, #5, #10, #11, #12, #13 (9.2)

So, you're set-up guarantees an objective way to determine division champs, while guaranteeing a 100% unfair way to determine the conference. While cross-division games can be unfair, they at least have the possibility of leveling out from year to year. Your plan guarantees that the teams in the West are always hamstrung.

You still haven't presented a coherent argument as to why the current format is necessary.

No, we are simply arguing for different results. You want fairness within the division while I want fairness within the conference. I would be fine with your plan if the divisions were realigned to try and achieve parity. But until then, rewarding both division winners with a one-off chance at the conference title when one is guaranteed an easier road every year is simply not okay.

 

[milohimself]

The rankings you're using are as of now. It changes. Prior to the arrival of Miles/Saban/Chizik (erm, Newton) I think it's safe to assert the East was the better division for over many years, and far better for most of that time span.

I think it's safe to presume that any team with aspirations of winning the SEC also has aspirations of winning national titles. Even with a four team playoff, ranking still matters. Cross division games will still matter, but I still have not heard a good explanation of why there are fixed divisions and no method of sending the best teams from each of those divisions to the conference championship game every year.

I agree that more conference games helps flesh out the better teams, but there's no sense in having cross division games when a team in the East can go undefeated against its division foes but lose to Alabama and LSU, while another team in that same division can lose to the aforementioned but still go through by virtue of drawing Ole Miss and Auburn.

A proxy for that EXACT scenario has happened multiple times since the SEC split into divisions.

EVERY year in the SEC, the first question asked is not "Who is the best team from this division?" but rather "Who's schedule sets up nicely for them to make it to the title game?" Looking at the East last season, before any of the games happened, everybody looked at Georgia and didn't say they were the best team in the division, but instead "They have to make the conference title game with THAT schedule."

It's completely nuts. It is, inextricably and by its very nature, taking two unlike things and comparing them as if they were the same.

In the world of research, we call that failure to adjust for external variables, and whenever it comes up, it is broadly dismissed as invalid, and for good reason.

 

[milohimself]

Yes, Bama lucks out by getting Kentucky and UT this year, while LSU gets UF and UGA. But it helps level us off with a team like UGA, who also gets UK and UT. In the end, you're competing for the conference, and winning the division is simply a means to an end.

This statement is completely irrelevant. Alabama and Georgia are not in the same division and thus not competing for the same berth in the SEC Championship Game.

The LSU part is the only part of that statement that IS relevant, and a full quarter of their conference schedule is significantly more difficult than Alabama's, yet this season, one of those two teams will receive a berth in the SEC Championship game via a method that assumes their schedules are the same. There is absolutely no logic.

I think my argument is for acting like one conference rather than two conferences with an OOC scheduling agreement. The only way to remove any arbitrary determination of a champion would be to play a 13 game round robin, but that's never going to happen.

The SEC cannot have it both ways. When a conference splits into two divisions, they become two entities. The issue at hand was amplified when the league expanded to 14 teams; every program shares now one less common opponent.

So, you're set-up guarantees an objective way to determine division champs, while guaranteeing a 100% unfair way to determine the conference. While cross-division games can be unfair, they at least have the possibility of leveling out from year to year. Your plan guarantees that the teams in the West are always hamstrung.

Re: Bolded, that is absolutely pointless. What happens one year has no effect on the next. Trying to do anything other than determine something for each season individually is silly.

Assuming the notion of leveling out is completely absurd, let's take that out of your statement.

You are left with two statements:

- Cross-division games are unfair.
- It is unfair to the stronger division (currently the west).

Yes, cross-division games are unfair. Extremely unfair. Yet they are treated as if they are the same for every individual season. I'm still waiting on an explanation as to how this makes sense.

And yes, the better division (west) is hamstrung. They may have the three best teams in the conference, but they only have one slot in the SECCG, while the inferior division (east) is guaranteed one spot as well.

Again, this is an argument against conference championship games and/or fixed divisions in general. And that is where I agree with you, I also think that conference title games are a poor way to determine conference champions. Giving one team from a weaker division a one-off chance to win the whole thing is silly.

But these are the constraints we're dealing with, and what needs to be solved is to find the most valid way to send two teams to a conference title game.

No, we are simply arguing for different results. You want fairness within the division while I want fairness within the conference. I would be fine with your plan if the divisions were realigned to try and achieve parity. But until then, rewarding both division winners with a one-off chance at the conference title when one is guaranteed an easier road every year is simply not okay.

Again, you have a general argument against conference championship games in general. One division will always be weaker than the other, and in some years, significantly so.

Counting more games against uncommon opponents achieves near zero in the way of weeding out better teams, while simultaneously and drastically decreasing the validity of how conference title games are set up.

 

[milohimself]

Seeing as all the major leagues are about to be at 16 teams anyhow, seven games against 100% common opponents ought to be sufficient to determine the most worthy team in a division, given the constraints of a 12 game schedule.

If the SEC gets a nine game schedule, one fixed cross-divisional game every year between historical rivals can be maintained for purposes of tradition (do you really think there's any way to devalue when Alabama and Tennessee or Auburn and Georgia take the field against each other?), and another rotating slot against an inter-divisional opponent to make sure every team sees every other from the same conference at least every now and then.

Those games could still count towards bowl eligibility and rankings, which will be as important as ever for seeding and at-large berths in the new CFB Playoff.

 

[bamawriter]

Seeing as all the major leagues are about to be at 16 teams anyhow, seven games against 100% common opponents ought to be sufficient to determine the most worthy team in a division, given the constraints of a 12 game schedule.

If the SEC gets a nine game schedule, one fixed cross-divisional game every year between historical rivals can be maintained for purposes of tradition (do you really think there's any way to devalue when Alabama and Tennessee or Auburn and Georgia take the field against each other?), and another rotating slot against an inter-divisional opponent to make sure every team sees every other from the same conference at least every now and then.

Those games could still count towards bowl eligibility and rankings, which will be as important as ever for seeding and at-large berths in the new CFB Playoff.

You have made your point very well. It comes down to best vs most deserving. I totally agree that your proposal establishes the most deserving, but I disagree that it establishes the best.

And I dislike the idea that we'd have to pray that Bama and UT get to Atlanta so that the game determines the SEC. The TSIO has helped determine the SEC title 36 times. It would suck to think that it would become so irrelevant.

 

[milohimself]

The game's relevance to the SEC title was diminished the moment the SECCG came into being and the two teams were placed in different divisions. It's already happened, determining SECCG berths based on divisional records wouldn't change much.

That said, now that we have a playoff (and hopefully when that playoff expands to 8 in the future), TSIO will hopefully continue its national relevance most seasons.