CCGs

[CJHawkeyes]

I have never seen anyone point this out, but I would imagine that every conference as is is free to conduct a conference championship game. I suspect the requirements for conducting a CCG only apply if it is the participants' 13th game. For example, suppose the Big Ten and MAC agree on the following setup. All members play 11 games including eight conference games. The top two teams in each conference play for their respective conference title in their 12th regular season game. Remaining teams could participate in a Big Ten-MAC challenge for their 12th games with the MAC's 12th and 13th place teams playing each other. Matchups could be 3rd vs 3rd, 4th vs 4th, and so on with the Big Ten hosting all games. Or perhaps 3rd vs 11th, 4th vs 10th, and so on with the highest finisher in its respective conference hosting and avoiding potential conflict with bowl matchups.

That said, this setup is only meant as an example of how a conference without 12 members could have a CCG. I'm sure there are numerous reasons why individual conferences might oppose such a setup, but given this setup, what does the Big Ten lose? If the Big Ten hosts all challenge games, nine members still get the maximum number of home games. Does the value of a Big Ten CCG offset the loss of a home game for the participants?

[footballfiji]

I'm not familiar with the rule...but I'm pretty sure it says only conferences with 12 teams or more (the Mac had 16 at one point) can hold a conference championship game.

[buckeyejim]

Whose rule? Does the NCAA (or anyone else, for that matter) have authority to tell a conference how they determine their championship?

The NCAA is the governing body and they have said that a conference is REQUIRED to have 12 or more member to conduct a conference championship game. The ONLY thing that the NCAA does not control are the bowl games but the NCAA does have a say as to who can play in a bowl game. The NCAA requires a school to have a .500 record or better to be ELIGIBLE to accept a bowl berth.

By the way it was the WAC, not the MAC that used to have 16 members. That's where the Mountain West Conference can about. Eight WAC member broke off and formed the MWC.

[footballfiji]

I think the MAC had 16 (or it could have been 14 members) as late as two years ago.

[CJHawkeyes]

The NCAA is the governing body and they have said that a conference is REQUIRED to have 12 or more member to conduct a conference championship game. The ONLY thing that the NCAA does not control are the bowl games but the NCAA does have a say as to who can play in a bowl game. The NCAA requires a school to have a .500 record or better to be ELIGIBLE to accept a bowl berth.

By the way it was the WAC, not the MAC that used to have 16 members. That's where the Mountain West Conference can about. Eight WAC member broke off and formed the MWC.


I'm not actually advocating that the Big Ten or any other conference do this, but how could the NCAA prevent the setup I suggested? Again, I think the rules only apply in order for the CCG to be exempted and not count against the 12 game limit. Since the the Big Ten would not be exceeding 12 games, how could the NCAA possibly prevent a Big Ten CCG? How could they possibly prevent the Big Ten from determining its champion as it wishes within the 12 game limit?

[HellYeahHokie]

Again, I think the rules only apply in order for the CCG to be exempted and not count against the 12 game limit.

This is what I understand to be the case. It's to allow the extra game.

I don't think the NCAA would have any ability to deny a championship if they were able to do it as the 11th game.

The problem is, if the final 2 teams play their 11th game of the season for the championship, what do the remaining nine teams do for an 11th game?

[EvilVodka]

I have never seen anyone point this out, but I would imagine that every conference as is is free to conduct a conference championship game. I suspect the requirements for conducting a CCG only apply if it is the participants' 13th game. For example, suppose the Big Ten and MAC agree on the following setup. All members play 11 games including eight conference games. The top two teams in each conference play for their respective conference title in their 12th regular season game. Remaining teams could participate in a Big Ten-MAC challenge for their 12th games with the MAC's 12th and 13th place teams playing each other. Matchups could be 3rd vs 3rd, 4th vs 4th, and so on with the Big Ten hosting all games. Or perhaps 3rd vs 11th, 4th vs 10th, and so on with the highest finisher in its respective conference hosting and avoiding potential conflict with bowl matchups.

That said, this setup is only meant as an example of how a conference without 12 members could have a CCG. I'm sure there are numerous reasons why individual conferences might oppose such a setup, but given this setup, what does the Big Ten lose? If the Big Ten hosts all challenge games, nine members still get the maximum number of home games. Does the value of a Big Ten CCG offset the loss of a home game for the participants?

...or you could just add a 12th program...

but why bother when half the conference gets co-champs every year!

[CJHawkeyes]

This is what I understand to be the case. It's to allow the extra game.

I don't think the NCAA would have any ability to deny a championship if they were able to do it as the 11th game.

The problem is, if the final 2 teams play their 11th game of the season for the championship, what do the remaining nine teams do for an 11th game?

I spelled out a possible 12th game scenario for the remaining teams. Of course, it would requre the cooperation of another conference. Another possibility would to be pair up 8 of the 9 remaining teams that have not already played and have an annual agreement with one school outside the Big Ten to play the lone remaining Big Ten team. I'm not actually arguing in favor of any of these setups. Just pointing out that a CCG could be played by conferences without 12 or members.

[CJHawkeyes]

...or you could just add a 12th program...

but why bother when half the conference gets co-champs every year!

Besides the fact that I have destroyed the co-champs argument every year theory on several occasions, simply adding a 12th member just to have a CCG and appease non-Big Ten fans is easier said than done. Why it bothers you so much that members with equal conference records are recognized as champions when tiebreakers ultimately reward one team more than any others is beyond me. Especially when the CCG setup has allowed a 5-3 team the opportunity to upset an 8-0 team.

[footballfiji]

Besides the fact that I have destroyed the co-champs argument every year theory on several occasions, simply adding a 12th member just to have a CCG and appease non-Big Ten fans is easier said than done. Why it bothers you so much that members with equal conference records are recognized as champions when tiebreakers ultimately reward one team more than any others is beyond me. Especially when the CCG setup has allowed a 5-3 team the opportunity to upset an 8-0 team.

If a 5-3 team upsets an 8-0 team then the 5-3 team is a better team. Case closed they settled it on the field.

And adding a 12th member to the Big 10 is not that hard. Notre Dame, Pitt, and even Louisville would geographically fit. Notre Dame is the best candidate because it fits both the athletic and academic requirements of the Big 10.

[CJHawkeyes]

If a 5-3 team upsets an 8-0 team then the 5-3 team is a better team. Case closed they settled it on the field.

And adding a 12th member to the Big 10 is not that hard. Notre Dame, Pitt, and even Louisville would geographically fit. Notre Dame is the best candidate because it fits both the athletic and academic requirements of the Big 10.

1-A 5-3 team is not necessarily a better team if it beats an 8-0 especially since the latter may win a regular season game versus the former. That said, it is neither here nor there if the 5-3 team is "better" because competition is not about determining the best team. The 5-3 team would be the undisputed champion based on the rules. That is all the result determines and all that matters. Whatever else may be true is irrelevant.

2-Notre Dame already turned down the Big Ten whether or not an official invitation was offered. Furthermore, I believe Penn State opposes Pittsburgh's joining the Big Ten. Academic and financial considerations make choosing a 12th member easier said than done. I'm not sure what Louisville brings to the table in that respect.

3-None of this has anything to with the fact that I was simply pointing out that 12 members are not actually needed to have a CCG.

4-Finally, the Big Ten doesn't seem to want one and the only people upset by that seem to be non-Big Ten fans who think the Big Ten has an unfair advantage simply because they haven't chosen to make things more difficult for their members.