Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[2speedy1]

Yes and then those top two play each other to determine who the winner is. Mainly due those two having a high likelihood of not playing each other already. It’s a pretty simple and easy way to determine the champion that no one has a problem with as opposed to just crowing the person with the best record incase they had an Indiana level schedule

So team A and B.

Team A and B. Play 1 time in regular season, as happens a lot.

Team A goes 12-0 beating team B in regular season.

Team B goes 10-2 and finishes in 2nd in the regular season.

Team B wins the CCG, and is crowned the champion at 11-2

Team A is runner up at 12-1 with only loss in CCG.

I get how this works, but, Team A got screwed.

Its not like they do in BB where we have a regular season champion and a tourney champion.

 

[2speedy1]

Do you seriously think if SMU hadn't played in the ACC title game they would have been given a CFP spot?

If there was no CCG, they would have finished as the champion of the ACC and by giving the top 4 ranked champs a bye.... they would have been in a bye spot in the playoff, yes.

They didnt need to "play in" They were in playoff bye position going into said CCG, and dropped out of bye position by losing that game.

 

[Gonzo]

If there was no CCG, they would have finished as the champion of the ACC and by giving the top 4 ranked champs a bye.... they would have been in a bye spot in the playoff, yes.

They didnt need to "play in" They were in playoff bye position going into said CCG, and dropped out of bye position by losing that game.

Well that's a dodge. Lol. There IS a CCG game in the ACC. Your point seemed to be that if SMU hadn't played in it that they'd have been in the CFP. Nonsense. There is an ACC CCG and my point was that if SMU hadn't played in it there's no way they'd have been given a spot in the CFP.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

So team A and B.

Team A and B. Play 1 time in regular season, as happens a lot.

Team A goes 12-0 beating team B in regular season.

Team B goes 10-2 and finishes in 2nd in the regular season.

Team B wins the CCG, and is crowned the champion at 11-2

Team A is runner up at 12-1 with only loss in CCG.

I get how this works, but, Team A got screwed.

Its not like they do in BB where we have a regular season champion and a tourney champion.

In your scenario I kinda agree. We can even use teams this year say Oregon and OSU. If OSU would have beaten Oregon after losing to them and be crowned champion then sure you have an argument. I could put some reason out there as to why not but sure.

Then let’s look at the Big12, ASU and ISU had the exact same conference record. Should ASU have just been named the champion? I bet ISU fans would be pissed about that since they didn’t go head to head and vice versa if ISU was just crowned champion. Thats why you need the championship game

Again I totally agree with you that’s it’s meaningless for the playoff in the 14 team auto bid playoff situation but for crowning a conference champ it’s still very much needed.

 

[AlaCyclone]

Then let’s look at the Big12, ASU and ISU had the exact same conference record. Should ASU have just been named the champion? I bet ISU fans would be pissed about that since they didn’t go head to head and vice versa if ISU was just crowned champion. Thats why you need the championship game

There would have been a four-way tie for the Championship between ASU, ISU, BYU and Colorado - just like 1990 in the B1G with Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State and Illinois!

 

[2speedy1]

Well that's a dodge. Lol. There IS a CCG game in the ACC. Your point seemed to be that if SMU hadn't played in it that they'd have been in the CFP. Nonsense. There is an ACC CCG and my point was that if SMU hadn't played in it there's no way they'd have been given a spot in the CFP.

No, my point was that having a CCG vs not having a CCG, by the conference, can hurt more than it helps.

That has been my position from the beginning. What I have been claiming is that the CCG in itself, as in actually having said game vs eliminating it all together, is what in this point of the system can be detrimental.
This was my point, having a CCG in the current and future system as they are predicting, has as much or more of a chance to hurt the teams playing in it and also the conference, as to not hosting that game. And with multiple auto bids, and few or no autobids, per conference the point of having said CCG is mute, and in many cases this game will hurt the teams and/or conference more than it helps. Outside of Money.

 

[Gonzo]

No, my point was that having a CCG vs not having a CCG, by the conference, can hurt more than it helps.

That has been my position from the beginning. What I have been claiming is that the CCG in itself, as in actually having said game vs eliminating it all together, is what in this point of the system can be detrimental.
This was my point, having a CCG in the current and future system as they are predicting, has as much or more of a chance to hurt the teams playing in it and also the conference, as to not hosting that game. And with multiple auto bids, and few or no autobids, per conference the point of having said CCG is mute, and in many cases this game will hurt the teams and/or conference more than it helps. Outside of Money.

No. Here's what you said:

"What is happening is they matter less and less. And if anything what this last year showed is going forward in this system they hurt you more than they gain."

That's not you saying anything about having a CCG vs. not having a CCG. That's you saying that, with CCG games in place as they currently are, playing in one hurts you more than it helps you.

 

[2speedy1]

In your scenario I kinda agree. We can even use teams this year say Oregon and OSU. If OSU would have beaten Oregon after losing to them and be crowned champion then sure you have an argument. I could put some reason out there as to why not but sure.

Then let’s look at the Big12, ASU and ISU had the exact same conference record. Should ASU have just been named the champion? I bet ISU fans would be pissed about that since they didn’t go head to head and vice versa if ISU was just crowned champion. Thats why you need the championship game

Again I totally agree with you that’s it’s meaningless for the playoff in the 14 team auto bid playoff situation but for crowning a conference champ it’s still very much needed.

There are tiebreaker scenarios for this exact reason.

But it is not like they have not named Co-champs in many sports in many conferences forever.

When it comes to actual champion, they would name co champs, the tiebreaker scenario would be for things like who gets a bye, etc if there were still a bye scenario, but then the rankings system would come in as well.

 

[2speedy1]

No. Here's what you said:

"What is happening is they matter less and less. And if anything what this last year showed is going forward in this system they hurt you more than they gain."

That's not you saying anything about having a CCG vs. not having a CCG. That's you saying that, with CCG games in place as they currently are, playing in one hurts you more than it helps you.

Maybe you are reading into that sentence more than what I meant/said.

My entire point from the beginning is a CCG vs NO CCG. Not having a CCG and said teams not being good enough to be in said game.

Because like you said, Alabama not playing in the CCG game hurt them.... but, that was because they were not in the top 2, not because they didnt play in it. Which is why I said your point made no sense, because having a ccg vs not having a ccg would not change Alabamas position.

You can claim I have argued something different, and if there was something i wrote that says other than a CCG vs NO CCG than it was misread or misstated, Because that has been the point I have been trying to get across from the beginning.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

There are tiebreaker scenarios for this exact reason.

But it is not like they have not named Co-champs in many sports in many conferences forever.

When it comes to actual champion, they would name co champs, the tiebreaker scenario would be for things like who gets a bye, etc if there were still a bye scenario, but then the rankings system would come in as well.

Yeah no one likes co champs, that’s always been BS. Why have co champs, just have the championship game. Problem solved and no issues. That’s kinda my point.

If you have a co champion that means you don’t have an actual champion. I say this having teams that lay claim to multipule championships and nattys due to that stupidity

 

[2speedy1]

Yeah no one likes co champs, that’s always been BS. Why have co champs, just have the championship game. Problem solved and no issues. That’s kinda my point.

If you have a co champion that means you don’t have an actual champion. I say this having teams that lay claim to multipule championships and nattys due to that stupidity

I get that. But my point is not so much as in naming a champion, vs how said CCG relates to getting into the playoff.

I get that a CCG gives you a champion, for the conference. But outside the byes, that does very little if anything of benefit when it comes to the playoff, and has as much of a chance to hurt than help.

This is about getting into and positioning for the playoff, and as I stated moving forward, especially in a system with multiple auto bids, and reduced byes, having a CCG game in that system has little benefit, and in many cases hurts more than it helps. And so no one is confused I am not saying not playing in a CCG that is being held, I am saying, NOT HOLDING a CCG by the conference vs Holding one. That moving forward, actually hosting a CCG has Little benefit, when it comes to the playoff, vs not hosting one, with 4 autobids and no byes, what is the benefit outside of naming a true conf champ, when it comes to the playoff?

 

[Gonzo]

Maybe you are reading into that sentence more than what I meant/said.

My entire point from the beginning is a CCG vs NO CCG. Not having a CCG and said teams not being good enough to be in said game.

Because like you said, Alabama not playing in the CCG game hurt them.... but, that was because they were not in the top 2, not because they didnt play in it. Which is why I said your point made no sense, because having a ccg vs not having a ccg would not change Alabamas position.

You can claim I have argued something different, and if there was something i wrote that says other than a CCG vs NO CCG than it was misread or misstated, Because that has been the point I have been trying to get across from the beginning.

Lol, whatever dude.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

I get that. But my point is not so much as in naming a champion, vs how said CCG relates to getting into the playoff.

I get that a CCG gives you a champion, for the conference. But outside the byes, that does very little if anything of benefit when it comes to the playoff, and has as much of a chance to hurt than help.

This is about getting into and positioning for the playoff, and as I stated moving forward, especially in a system with multiple auto bids, and reduced byes, having a CCG game in that system has little benefit, and in many cases hurts more than it helps. And so no one is confused I am not saying not playing in a CCG that is being held, I am saying, NOT HOLDING a CCG by the conference vs Holding one. That moving forward, actually hosting a CCG has Little benefit, when it comes to the playoff, vs not hosting one, with 4 autobids and no byes, what is the benefit outside of naming a true conf champ, when it comes to the playoff?

Yep and as I’ve said a half dozen times now you’re right when it comes to the new playoff setting

 

[HouClone]

Hope Yormark and Big 12 presidents fight this one. They gave up the Sudetenland on the last issue. They appease again and it will just get worse if possible (Tuesday night games, etc.).

 

[AlaCyclone]

RE: CCGs and current setup:

Playing in a CCG, Winning it and getting a Bye does not hurt a team. Oregon, Georgia, Boise State and Arizona State all got a week off and did not have to play in the First Round. They only had to win 3 CFP Games to win the Tournament.

No tears for Texas, Penn State and SMU who played in their CCGs, lost and played in the First Round.

The team that was hurt the most was Clemson who won the ACC CCG, did not get a bye AND had to play in First Round on the road.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Hope Yormark and Big 12 presidents fight this one. They gave up the Sudetenland on the last issue. They appease again and it will just get worse if possible (Tuesday night games, etc.).

Sadly they already gave over the rights to the P2 to make changes to the playoff format without Big12 or ACC votes. Not happy about that as no way that doesn’t get abused

 

[cykadelic2]

Hope Yormark and Big 12 presidents fight this one. They gave up the Sudetenland on the last issue. They appease again and it will just get worse if possible (Tuesday night games, etc.).

Fight what? Anything related to the CFP is now in sole control of the SEC and B10 because they threatened to separate if they didn't get that control according to JP. From the Athletic:

"Unlike the current CFP arrangement, any changes to the Playoff structure beginning in 2026 do not require unanimous approval from the FBS conferences and Notre Dame. According to a memo of understanding completed last March when the Playoff’s new contract with ESPN was finalized, the Big Ten and SEC have the most impactful voices. Collectively, they can push through format changes without consensus from the CFP board of managers."

The only thing Yormark can fight the MFers on are anti-trust and collusion with Fed intervention which is why the B10/SEC have anti-trust lawyers at their joint meetings. And I hope it does come to that to save the sport and prevent relegation to 25-30 schools (including ISU) in 2031.

 

[HouClone]

Sadly they already gave over the rights to the P2 to make changes to the playoff format without Big12 or ACC votes. Not happy about that as no way that doesn’t get abused

Yeah, big mistake ceding over control. But what does that mean? Could Big 10 and SEC say the Big 12 and ACC get only 1 team in between the two and only if undefeated?

 

[Die4Cy]

Yeah, big mistake ceding over control. But what does that mean? Could Big 10 and SEC say the Big 12 and ACC get only 1 team in between the two and only if undefeated?

Big Ten and SEC bravado is only there because there's an unstated understanding from TV execs that they won't penalize them for whatever they try and do. No risk all reward.

 

[Gonzo]

Big Ten and SEC bravado is only there because there's an unstated understanding from TV execs that they won't penalize them for whatever they try and do. No risk all reward.

It's because they have the programs/brands that command ratings/viewership. Just the truth.