(01-13-2016 11:48 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  You simply can't have teams with better records against exact same conference schedule get shut out of the CCG in lieu of teams with worse records. There are no examples of that. In that model the degree of "unfairness" outweighs any other advantages of a CCG.

I simply do not understand why you put so much emphasis on "exact". I don't think any teams or fans would. Heck, "exact" just means the schedules are the same, neither stronger nor weaker. An even more unfair situation would be a team with the a worse record and weaker schedule getting in over a team with a better record and stronger schedule, and we see that in many sports leagues all the time.

Nobody complains, because the rules were established beforehand. I would be extremely surprised if anyone in the Big 12 North ever said "hey, we had a better record than team X in the Big 12 South but they are in the title game and we aren't even though we played the same conference schedule!" The obvious answer is "you knew you had to win the Big 12 North, and what happens in the South has nothing to do with you".

(01-13-2016 12:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 11:48 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  You simply can't have teams with better records against exact same conference schedule get shut out of the CCG in lieu of teams with worse records. There are no examples of that. In that model the degree of "unfairness" outweighs any other advantages of a CCG.

I simply do not understand why you put so much emphasis on "exact". I don't think any teams or fans would. Heck, "exact" just means the schedules are the same, neither stronger nor weaker. An even more unfair situation would be a team with the a worse record and weaker schedule getting in over a team with a better record and stronger schedule, and we see that in many sports leagues all the time.

Nobody complains, because the rules were established beforehand.

I definitely think teams and fans would put emphasis on that. That's the whole essence of fairness, in fact. Two teams play the same schedule and one does better they should be the team rewarded with a chance to win the conference. In no other league or situation do teams in separate divisions play the exact same schedule. We are talking about a unique situation, and I think teams and fans would pick up on the injustice of one team with a worse record making the CCG over a team with a better record against the same conference schedule. It is a deal breaker, IMO, no matter what the other virtues of the CCG might be, and I don't think Bowslby was posturing by saying so.

(01-13-2016 12:35 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 11:48 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  You simply can't have teams with better records against exact same conference schedule get shut out of the CCG in lieu of teams with worse records. There are no examples of that. In that model the degree of "unfairness" outweighs any other advantages of a CCG.

I simply do not understand why you put so much emphasis on "exact". I don't think any teams or fans would. Heck, "exact" just means the schedules are the same, neither stronger nor weaker. An even more unfair situation would be a team with the a worse record and weaker schedule getting in over a team with a better record and stronger schedule, and we see that in many sports leagues all the time.

Nobody complains, because the rules were established beforehand.

I definitely think teams and fans would put emphasis on that. That's the whole essence of fairness, in fact. Two teams play the same schedule and one does better they should be the team rewarded with a chance to win the conference. In no other league or situation do teams in separate divisions play the exact same schedule. We are talking about a unique situation, and I think teams and fans would pick up on the injustice of one team with a worse record making the CCG over a team with a better record against the same conference schedule. It is a deal breaker, IMO, no matter what the other virtues of the CCG might be, and I don't think Bowslby was posturing by saying so.

I think they'd understand just fine if this was the scenario:

#3 OU 12-0 (8-0)
#22 Texas 9-3 (7-1) - lost to OU big, beat TCU by 1 point in Austin in OT
#6 TCU 10-2 (6-2) - lost to OU big, lost to Texas by 1 point in Austin in OT
(rest are 4-4 or lower in conf)

TCU and Texas non-conf opponents are of equal quality, TCU went 4-0 and Texas went 2-2.

(01-13-2016 12:35 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 11:48 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  You simply can't have teams with better records against exact same conference schedule get shut out of the CCG in lieu of teams with worse records. There are no examples of that. In that model the degree of "unfairness" outweighs any other advantages of a CCG.

I simply do not understand why you put so much emphasis on "exact". I don't think any teams or fans would. Heck, "exact" just means the schedules are the same, neither stronger nor weaker. An even more unfair situation would be a team with the a worse record and weaker schedule getting in over a team with a better record and stronger schedule, and we see that in many sports leagues all the time.

Nobody complains, because the rules were established beforehand.

I definitely think teams and fans would put emphasis on that. That's the whole essence of fairness, in fact. Two teams play the same schedule and one does better they should be the team rewarded with a chance to win the conference. In no other league or situation do teams in separate divisions play the exact same schedule. We are talking about a unique situation, and I think teams and fans would pick up on the injustice of one team with a worse record making the CCG over a team with a better record against the same conference schedule. It is a deal breaker, IMO, no matter what the other virtues of the CCG might be, and I don't think Bowslby was posturing by saying so.

Now you are emphasizing that its the "exact" same schedule.

We fundamentally disagree about the import of "exact same" conference schedule in terms of what is regarded by fans and media as 'fair'. I guess we will have to see what happens. If the Big 12 (a) Stands pat, (b) expands in order to add a CCG, or © if they don't expand but split into divisions and drop down to 8 overall conference games, that will confirm that you were correct, that they see the "exact same schedule" issue as a deal-breaker for having a CCG. If they remain at 10 teams, and add a CCG by either (a) not forming divisions or (b) forming divisions but keeping a full 9-game RR schedule, that will confirm my position.

(01-15-2016 07:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:35 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 11:48 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  You simply can't have teams with better records against exact same conference schedule get shut out of the CCG in lieu of teams with worse records. There are no examples of that. In that model the degree of "unfairness" outweighs any other advantages of a CCG.

I simply do not understand why you put so much emphasis on "exact". I don't think any teams or fans would. Heck, "exact" just means the schedules are the same, neither stronger nor weaker. An even more unfair situation would be a team with the a worse record and weaker schedule getting in over a team with a better record and stronger schedule, and we see that in many sports leagues all the time.

Nobody complains, because the rules were established beforehand.

I definitely think teams and fans would put emphasis on that. That's the whole essence of fairness, in fact. Two teams play the same schedule and one does better they should be the team rewarded with a chance to win the conference. In no other league or situation do teams in separate divisions play the exact same schedule. We are talking about a unique situation, and I think teams and fans would pick up on the injustice of one team with a worse record making the CCG over a team with a better record against the same conference schedule. It is a deal breaker, IMO, no matter what the other virtues of the CCG might be, and I don't think Bowslby was posturing by saying so.

Now you are emphasizing that its the "exact" same schedule.

We fundamentally disagree about the import of "exact same" conference schedule in terms of what is regarded by fans and media as 'fair'. I guess we will have to see what happens. If the Big 12 (a) Stands pat, (b) expands in order to add a CCG, or © if they don't expand but split into divisions and drop down to 8 overall conference games, that will confirm that you were correct, that they see the "exact same schedule" issue as a deal-breaker for having a CCG. If they remain at 10 teams, and add a CCG by either (a) not forming divisions or (b) forming divisions but keeping a full 9-game RR schedule, that will confirm my position.

I agree if they split into two 5 team divisions and add a CCG it would support your position, but I'm confused with the other. Why would adding a CCG and not forming divisions (what Bowlsby was pushing for the opportunity to do) support your position? In that case the two teams with the best record against the round robin would play in the CCG. That's exactly the "fair" I was arguing for. What I would be against as a fan (and I think what was a deal breaker for Bowlsby) is the CCG not pitting the teams with the two best records against the round robin.

Maybe I misunderstood your argument.

(01-15-2016 09:42 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 07:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:35 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 11:48 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  You simply can't have teams with better records against exact same conference schedule get shut out of the CCG in lieu of teams with worse records. There are no examples of that. In that model the degree of "unfairness" outweighs any other advantages of a CCG.

I simply do not understand why you put so much emphasis on "exact". I don't think any teams or fans would. Heck, "exact" just means the schedules are the same, neither stronger nor weaker. An even more unfair situation would be a team with the a worse record and weaker schedule getting in over a team with a better record and stronger schedule, and we see that in many sports leagues all the time.

Nobody complains, because the rules were established beforehand.

I definitely think teams and fans would put emphasis on that. That's the whole essence of fairness, in fact. Two teams play the same schedule and one does better they should be the team rewarded with a chance to win the conference. In no other league or situation do teams in separate divisions play the exact same schedule. We are talking about a unique situation, and I think teams and fans would pick up on the injustice of one team with a worse record making the CCG over a team with a better record against the same conference schedule. It is a deal breaker, IMO, no matter what the other virtues of the CCG might be, and I don't think Bowslby was posturing by saying so.

Now you are emphasizing that its the "exact" same schedule.

We fundamentally disagree about the import of "exact same" conference schedule in terms of what is regarded by fans and media as 'fair'. I guess we will have to see what happens. If the Big 12 (a) Stands pat, (b) expands in order to add a CCG, or © if they don't expand but split into divisions and drop down to 8 overall conference games, that will confirm that you were correct, that they see the "exact same schedule" issue as a deal-breaker for having a CCG. If they remain at 10 teams, and add a CCG by either (a) not forming divisions or (b) forming divisions but keeping a full 9-game RR schedule, that will confirm my position.

I agree if they split into two 5 team divisions and add a CCG it would support your position, but I'm confused with the other. Why would adding a CCG and not forming divisions (what Bowlsby was pushing for the opportunity to do) support your position? In that case the two teams with the best record against the round robin would play in the CCG. That's exactly the "fair" I was arguing for. What I would be against as a fan (and I think what was a deal breaker for Bowlsby) is the CCG not pitting the teams with the two best records against the round robin.

Maybe I misunderstood your argument.

I gave a counter-example in post #203.

(01-15-2016 10:49 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 09:42 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 07:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:35 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I simply do not understand why you put so much emphasis on "exact". I don't think any teams or fans would. Heck, "exact" just means the schedules are the same, neither stronger nor weaker. An even more unfair situation would be a team with the a worse record and weaker schedule getting in over a team with a better record and stronger schedule, and we see that in many sports leagues all the time.

Nobody complains, because the rules were established beforehand.

I definitely think teams and fans would put emphasis on that. That's the whole essence of fairness, in fact. Two teams play the same schedule and one does better they should be the team rewarded with a chance to win the conference. In no other league or situation do teams in separate divisions play the exact same schedule. We are talking about a unique situation, and I think teams and fans would pick up on the injustice of one team with a worse record making the CCG over a team with a better record against the same conference schedule. It is a deal breaker, IMO, no matter what the other virtues of the CCG might be, and I don't think Bowslby was posturing by saying so.

Now you are emphasizing that its the "exact" same schedule.

We fundamentally disagree about the import of "exact same" conference schedule in terms of what is regarded by fans and media as 'fair'. I guess we will have to see what happens. If the Big 12 (a) Stands pat, (b) expands in order to add a CCG, or © if they don't expand but split into divisions and drop down to 8 overall conference games, that will confirm that you were correct, that they see the "exact same schedule" issue as a deal-breaker for having a CCG. If they remain at 10 teams, and add a CCG by either (a) not forming divisions or (b) forming divisions but keeping a full 9-game RR schedule, that will confirm my position.

I agree if they split into two 5 team divisions and add a CCG it would support your position, but I'm confused with the other. Why would adding a CCG and not forming divisions (what Bowlsby was pushing for the opportunity to do) support your position? In that case the two teams with the best record against the round robin would play in the CCG. That's exactly the "fair" I was arguing for. What I would be against as a fan (and I think what was a deal breaker for Bowlsby) is the CCG not pitting the teams with the two best records against the round robin.

Maybe I misunderstood your argument.

I gave a counter-example in post #203.

My opinion is that UT should clearly go in that example. Conference (or divisional) record should be what determines who plays in a CCG. Then you have agreed on tie-breakers for teams with tied records, starting with head to head. Just like in the divisional races in all the conferences, nonconference record shouldn't matter.

(01-13-2016 12:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 05:11 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Huh? To date no one has ever used ranking to declare conference champions, the participants of CCG's, or division winners. At best, it has only been used as a tie breaker, and that is with more than two teams.

The OP here specifically talks about record. He never mentioned "ranking." In fact, both of you are specially railing against that.

I didn't say that CFP ranking should or would be used to determine division winners.

The context of the discussion is a conference that doesn't send the division winners to the CCG. Rather, they send the "first best" and "second best" teams to the CCG.


This year, the first best team in the SEC was clearly Alabama. Florida had a better record than Miss, but that's because they played a weaker schedule against a weaker division. Everyone knows that. Thus, the second best team was Miss. Not Florida.


In the B1G, let's say that Iowa lost their last home game to Nebraska. Then Ohio St and Iowa have the same record. So if the B1G wanted to send its first best and second best to the CCG, does it send Ohio St or Iowa as the second best? Probably Ohio St.

Then Ohio St wins, gets into the CFP, beats Alabama again ... you get the picture.

Yes I get the picture. Despite what you claim, you want to use a ranking to determine division winner, which is EXACTLY what you just described (you are just not calling "best" but that is a ranking), which is what I said.

(01-15-2016 10:56 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 10:49 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 09:42 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 07:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:35 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I definitely think teams and fans would put emphasis on that. That's the whole essence of fairness, in fact. Two teams play the same schedule and one does better they should be the team rewarded with a chance to win the conference. In no other league or situation do teams in separate divisions play the exact same schedule. We are talking about a unique situation, and I think teams and fans would pick up on the injustice of one team with a worse record making the CCG over a team with a better record against the same conference schedule. It is a deal breaker, IMO, no matter what the other virtues of the CCG might be, and I don't think Bowslby was posturing by saying so.

Now you are emphasizing that its the "exact" same schedule.

We fundamentally disagree about the import of "exact same" conference schedule in terms of what is regarded by fans and media as 'fair'. I guess we will have to see what happens. If the Big 12 (a) Stands pat, (b) expands in order to add a CCG, or © if they don't expand but split into divisions and drop down to 8 overall conference games, that will confirm that you were correct, that they see the "exact same schedule" issue as a deal-breaker for having a CCG. If they remain at 10 teams, and add a CCG by either (a) not forming divisions or (b) forming divisions but keeping a full 9-game RR schedule, that will confirm my position.

I agree if they split into two 5 team divisions and add a CCG it would support your position, but I'm confused with the other. Why would adding a CCG and not forming divisions (what Bowlsby was pushing for the opportunity to do) support your position? In that case the two teams with the best record against the round robin would play in the CCG. That's exactly the "fair" I was arguing for. What I would be against as a fan (and I think what was a deal breaker for Bowlsby) is the CCG not pitting the teams with the two best records against the round robin.

Maybe I misunderstood your argument.

I gave a counter-example in post #203.

My opinion is that UT should clearly go in that example. Conference (or divisional) record should be what determines who plays in a CCG. Then you have agreed on tie-breakers for teams with tied records, starting with head to head. Just like in the divisional races in all the conferences, nonconference record shouldn't matter.

I understand YOUR opinion on that. Heck, I might even have the same opinion.

But my point is that it would be easy for fans to understand how TCU could get selected "over" Texas, in that scenario.

(01-15-2016 11:20 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 05:11 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Huh? To date no one has ever used ranking to declare conference champions, the participants of CCG's, or division winners. At best, it has only been used as a tie breaker, and that is with more than two teams.

The OP here specifically talks about record. He never mentioned "ranking." In fact, both of you are specially railing against that.

I didn't say that CFP ranking should or would be used to determine division winners.

The context of the discussion is a conference that doesn't send the division winners to the CCG. Rather, they send the "first best" and "second best" teams to the CCG.


This year, the first best team in the SEC was clearly Alabama. Florida had a better record than Miss, but that's because they played a weaker schedule against a weaker division. Everyone knows that. Thus, the second best team was Miss. Not Florida.


In the B1G, let's say that Iowa lost their last home game to Nebraska. Then Ohio St and Iowa have the same record. So if the B1G wanted to send its first best and second best to the CCG, does it send Ohio St or Iowa as the second best? Probably Ohio St.

Then Ohio St wins, gets into the CFP, beats Alabama again ... you get the picture.

Yes I get the picture. Despite what you claim, you want to use a ranking to determine division winner, which is EXACTLY what you just described (you are just not calling "best" but that is a ranking), which is what I said.

No, you do not get the picture. Not even close.

Maybe an example is better.

Take the B1G this year, but say that Iowa lost its last regular season game to Nebraska.

Division winners unquestionably are Mich St and Iowa, which are by record. If the division winners go to the CCG, then the CCG would still be Mich St and Iowa.


What I'm saying is that if the CCG was the two best teams in the conference, then Mich St and Ohio St would be selected, even though Ohio St wouldn't have a better record than Iowa.

(01-15-2016 09:42 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 07:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:35 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 11:48 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  You simply can't have teams with better records against exact same conference schedule get shut out of the CCG in lieu of teams with worse records. There are no examples of that. In that model the degree of "unfairness" outweighs any other advantages of a CCG.

I simply do not understand why you put so much emphasis on "exact". I don't think any teams or fans would. Heck, "exact" just means the schedules are the same, neither stronger nor weaker. An even more unfair situation would be a team with the a worse record and weaker schedule getting in over a team with a better record and stronger schedule, and we see that in many sports leagues all the time.

Nobody complains, because the rules were established beforehand.

I definitely think teams and fans would put emphasis on that. That's the whole essence of fairness, in fact. Two teams play the same schedule and one does better they should be the team rewarded with a chance to win the conference. In no other league or situation do teams in separate divisions play the exact same schedule. We are talking about a unique situation, and I think teams and fans would pick up on the injustice of one team with a worse record making the CCG over a team with a better record against the same conference schedule. It is a deal breaker, IMO, no matter what the other virtues of the CCG might be, and I don't think Bowslby was posturing by saying so.

Now you are emphasizing that its the "exact" same schedule.

We fundamentally disagree about the import of "exact same" conference schedule in terms of what is regarded by fans and media as 'fair'. I guess we will have to see what happens. If the Big 12 (a) Stands pat, (b) expands in order to add a CCG, or © if they don't expand but split into divisions and drop down to 8 overall conference games, that will confirm that you were correct, that they see the "exact same schedule" issue as a deal-breaker for having a CCG. If they remain at 10 teams, and add a CCG by either (a) not forming divisions or (b) forming divisions but keeping a full 9-game RR schedule, that will confirm my position.

I agree if they split into two 5 team divisions and add a CCG it would support your position, but I'm confused with the other. Why would adding a CCG and not forming divisions (what Bowlsby was pushing for the opportunity to do) support your position? In that case the two teams with the best record against the round robin would play in the CCG. That's exactly the "fair" I was arguing for. What I would be against as a fan (and I think what was a deal breaker for Bowlsby) is the CCG not pitting the teams with the two best records against the round robin.

Maybe I misunderstood your argument.

No, I made a mistake. You are correct, only the second (b) above would support my position.

(01-15-2016 10:56 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 10:49 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 09:42 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 07:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:35 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I definitely think teams and fans would put emphasis on that. That's the whole essence of fairness, in fact. Two teams play the same schedule and one does better they should be the team rewarded with a chance to win the conference. In no other league or situation do teams in separate divisions play the exact same schedule. We are talking about a unique situation, and I think teams and fans would pick up on the injustice of one team with a worse record making the CCG over a team with a better record against the same conference schedule. It is a deal breaker, IMO, no matter what the other virtues of the CCG might be, and I don't think Bowslby was posturing by saying so.

Now you are emphasizing that its the "exact" same schedule.

We fundamentally disagree about the import of "exact same" conference schedule in terms of what is regarded by fans and media as 'fair'. I guess we will have to see what happens. If the Big 12 (a) Stands pat, (b) expands in order to add a CCG, or © if they don't expand but split into divisions and drop down to 8 overall conference games, that will confirm that you were correct, that they see the "exact same schedule" issue as a deal-breaker for having a CCG. If they remain at 10 teams, and add a CCG by either (a) not forming divisions or (b) forming divisions but keeping a full 9-game RR schedule, that will confirm my position.

I agree if they split into two 5 team divisions and add a CCG it would support your position, but I'm confused with the other. Why would adding a CCG and not forming divisions (what Bowlsby was pushing for the opportunity to do) support your position? In that case the two teams with the best record against the round robin would play in the CCG. That's exactly the "fair" I was arguing for. What I would be against as a fan (and I think what was a deal breaker for Bowlsby) is the CCG not pitting the teams with the two best records against the round robin.

Maybe I misunderstood your argument.

I gave a counter-example in post #203.

My opinion is that UT should clearly go in that example. Conference (or divisional) record should be what determines who plays in a CCG. Then you have agreed on tie-breakers for teams with tied records, starting with head to head. Just like in the divisional races in all the conferences, nonconference record shouldn't matter.

I think Bison was asking was would his scenario, where TCU (with the worse Big 12 record) gets the nod over Texas, be understandable/acceptable to fans at large? Would they accept it or regard it as fundamentally unfair?

And I think there's a good chance it would be accepted, simply because in many sports, games from outside of a team's division or even conference do count in determining divisional standings. It's not a novel concept. E.g., in the NFC East, if the Cowboys are 6-2 in the division (and lost BOTH games head to head vs the Redskins) but 12-4 overall while the Redskins are 7-1 in the division but 11-5 overall, everyone, even the most die-hard Redskins fan, accepts that the Cowboys are the 'legitimate' division champ. That's true even if the Redskins also had a better conference (NFC) record and the Cowboys advantage came strictly from having a better record against AFC opponents. And it's true even though the Redskins and Cowboys will not have played identical out-of-division schedules.

So it's not like the college football (and basketball) practice of counting only conference records for determining conference standings is set in stone as the accepted standard of fairness or good structure.

(01-15-2016 12:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 11:20 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 05:11 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Huh? To date no one has ever used ranking to declare conference champions, the participants of CCG's, or division winners. At best, it has only been used as a tie breaker, and that is with more than two teams.

The OP here specifically talks about record. He never mentioned "ranking." In fact, both of you are specially railing against that.

I didn't say that CFP ranking should or would be used to determine division winners.

The context of the discussion is a conference that doesn't send the division winners to the CCG. Rather, they send the "first best" and "second best" teams to the CCG.


This year, the first best team in the SEC was clearly Alabama. Florida had a better record than Miss, but that's because they played a weaker schedule against a weaker division. Everyone knows that. Thus, the second best team was Miss. Not Florida.


In the B1G, let's say that Iowa lost their last home game to Nebraska. Then Ohio St and Iowa have the same record. So if the B1G wanted to send its first best and second best to the CCG, does it send Ohio St or Iowa as the second best? Probably Ohio St.

Then Ohio St wins, gets into the CFP, beats Alabama again ... you get the picture.

Yes I get the picture. Despite what you claim, you want to use a ranking to determine division winner, which is EXACTLY what you just described (you are just not calling "best" but that is a ranking), which is what I said.

No, you do not get the picture. Not even close.

Maybe an example is better.

Take the B1G this year, but say that Iowa lost its last regular season game to Nebraska.

Division winners unquestionably are Mich St and Iowa, which are by record. If the division winners go to the CCG, then the CCG would still be Mich St and Iowa.


What I'm saying is that if the CCG was the two best teams in the conference, then Mich St and Ohio St would be selected, even though Ohio St wouldn't have a better record than Iowa.

And with all of that, you STILL would be saying it is based on ranking, since no objective tie breaker (head to head, conference record, total record) would support that. What you cannot seem to get, is no matter how many different ways you try to describe it, you want to use a subjective ranking system to select teams, then the objective formula's (record, head to head, overall, etc) that have always been used, other than to settle three way ties. It is fine if you are suggesting it, but any use of the word "best" that is not related to record first, head to head second, is using a ranking to decide. No matter how you try to change the wording.