Proposal to Deregulate Conference Title Games

#1
B

bamawriter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
26,214
Likes
16,451
#1
From CBS Sports

I like this proposal a lot.

It would kill the need for divisional play, as well as allow conferences with less than 12 members to play a title game.
 
#4
#4
I kind of half like this.

I think any conference should be allowed to have a championship game regardless of if they have 12 teams or not. But I'm not crazy about doing away with the divisions. I like the setup now because it puts emphasis on the regular season. I get the argument that the 2 best teams could be in the same division, but this year it would have more than likely been an Auburn/Alabama rematch. I think them playing a week later would diminish Auburn's upset win a week earlier.

There's no 100% correct answer. And I'm sure UT fans would have definitely liked this in the 90s when we would have had rematches with Florida for the SEC.
 
#6
#6
VolsSportsFan said:
I kind of half like this.

I think any conference should be allowed to have a championship game regardless of if they have 12 teams or not. But I'm not crazy about doing away with the divisions. I like the setup now because it puts emphasis on the regular season. I get the argument that the 2 best teams could be in the same division, but this year it would have more than likely been an Auburn/Alabama rematch. I think them playing a week later would diminish Auburn's upset win a week earlier.

There's no 100% correct answer. And I'm sure UT fans would have definitely liked this in the 90s when we would have had rematches with Florida for the SEC.
Click to expand...

While I don't dislike divisional play all together, I don't think it does much to protect the sanctity of the regular season. For instance, in 2011 UGA was, at best, the 4th best team in the SEC (and I wouldn't disagree with someone arguing they were 5th). But they got to play LSU in Atlanta despite the fact that they were inferior to Alabama and Arkansas (and South Carolina?).

For all the griping that people did about Bama getting a rematch with LSU in the BCSNCG, it could have been avoided if the two inarguably best teams in the SEC had met in the conference title game instead.
 
#7
#7
Vol4life25 said:
Dude, get over it....Auburn beat you.
Click to expand...

This is more along the lines of the two best teams should be able to play for the conference championship, not just division A and division B winner.


This has been discussed for a while...there were several years, for example 2011, where, say, it was pretty much just Alabama and LSU and everyone else by a gap (or 2010 as well)


Some have said that it really should be the two best teams in the conference to play in such cases, as opposed to just 1 versus a 9 win team from another division.


Personally, I'm on the fence about the idea.
 
#8
#8
It's also worth pointing out how much easier this would make scheduling. If every SEC team were to have two or three permanent rivals, and then play the other ten or eleven teams on a rotating basis, every team would play a home-and-home with every other team at least once every four years, as opposed to every twelve years like we have right now.
 
#9
#9
bamawriter said:
This proposal would not necessarily have put Alabama in the SECCG in 2013. Seriously, quit being a prick and tarding up every thread you choose to enter.
Click to expand...

My main concern is how the conference could fairly determine a tiebreaker between two teams with the same record that didn't play each other.
 
Last edited:
#10
#10
It wouldn't bother me if the SEC ended the SECCG and the Divisions and just had 14 teams and one champion.
 
#12
#12
Dave1967 said:
It wouldn't bother me if the SEC ended the SECCG and the Divisions and just had 14 teams and one champion.
Click to expand...

That's all but impossible for this reason:

TrueOrange said:
My main concern is how the conference could fairly determine a tiebreaker between two teams with the same record that didn't play each other.
Click to expand...

While certainly a concern, there are many ways to build in tiebreakers. In the end, the conference could simply send the highest ranked teams.
 
#13
#13
bamawriter said:
That's all but impossible for this reason:



While certainly a concern, there are many ways to build in tiebreakers. In the end, the conference could simply send the highest ranked teams.
Click to expand...

Who was ranked higher would be a tiebreaker
 
#14
#14
Dave1967 said:
Who was ranked higher would be a tiebreaker
Click to expand...

Eh. It's one thing to let rankings determine who gets a shot at the title. It still gets settled on the field. But allowing rankings to dictate the title outright is a tad problematic.

How pissed would you be if LSU started out ranked higher than UT in the pre-season, both teams went undefeated without playing one another, and LSU was awarded the conference title for no other reason than how they were perceived before the season even started?
 
#15
#15
bamawriter said:
Eh. It's one thing to let rankings determine who gets a shot at the title. It still gets settled on the field. But allowing rankings to dictate the title outright is a tad problematic.

How pissed would you be if LSU started out ranked higher than UT in the pre-season, both teams went undefeated without playing one another, and LSU was awarded the conference title for no other reason than how they were perceived before the season even started?
Click to expand...

That has happened before in the SEC. It happened in 1939(Tennessee,GT and Tulane were unbeaten in the SEC), 1951(when Tennessee was 10-0 and Georgia Tech was 10-0-1) and in 1977(When Alabama was 10-1 and unbeaten in the SEC and so was Kentucky 10-1 and unbeaten in the SEC). Good point that you make,however
 
#16
#16
Dave1967 said:
That has happened before in the SEC. It happened in 1939(Tennessee,GT and Tulane were unbeaten in the SEC), 1951(when Tennessee was 10-0 and Georgia Tech was 10-0-1) and in 1977(When Alabama was 10-1 and unbeaten in the SEC and so was Kentucky 10-1 and unbeaten in the SEC). Good point that you make,however
Click to expand...

I see your point, but back during those seasons they didn't attempt to break the tie. The teams were all co-champs (except for '77: Bama played one more conference game than Kentucky so there was no tie). They didn't just hand the trophy to the highest ranked team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#17
#17
bamawriter said:
Eh. It's one thing to let rankings determine who gets a shot at the title. It still gets settled on the field. But allowing rankings to dictate the title outright is a tad problematic.

How pissed would you be if LSU started out ranked higher than UT in the pre-season, both teams went undefeated without playing one another, and LSU was awarded the conference title for no other reason than how they were perceived before the season even started?
Click to expand...

Which leads us to the point that no official rankings should be released until at least October.

I have no clue why anyone would oppose that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#18
#18
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#21
#21
Seems like a good idea to me but if it were implemented, the NCAA would just **** it up like they do everything.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top