(06-19-2021 04:36 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 12:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Divisionless is a hot mess. I looked back at every season where a conference hosted a CCG, and had they been divisionless, you get a messy tie between 2+ teams, often ones that never played, about a 3rd of the time.

This is flat false. There will never be a tie, since you are picking by CFP rankings; those don't have ties.

And if they ever did (which they wont), say with both ranked 11th, then you go to your tie breakers such as head to head. It's certainly far better than un-ranked 7-5 UCLA, 8-4 Nebraska or 8-4 Pitt in the CCG with the threat of knocking your top team out of the playoff. This is even more important for G5 conferences like the MWC and AAC who would be at very high risk of losing their only bid.

And if it comes down to tie breakers that is your own fault for not taking care of business and leaving it to the football gods to pick one. No matter who you pick as the 2nd team (of two tied in rankings), if they win they'll be ranked ahead of the one who wasn't picked.

You are making a problem where none exists. Well if you have an OCD mind I guess it's a problem.

If 3 Big Ten teams finish with a conference record of 8-1 then you’ve got a 3 way tie. I’m talking about conference standings not anyone’s ranking system.

Did you even read the bumped thread detailing all the ties in CONFERENCE standings since the 90s? Explain to me how you’re setting all the ties between teams that didn’t play or among 3+ teams?

You can’t “take care of business” against someone who wasn’t on your schedule.

(06-20-2021 06:31 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 04:36 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 12:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Divisionless is a hot mess. I looked back at every season where a conference hosted a CCG, and had they been divisionless, you get a messy tie between 2+ teams, often ones that never played, about a 3rd of the time.

This is flat false. There will never be a tie, since you are picking by CFP rankings; those don't have ties.

And if they ever did (which they wont), say with both ranked 11th, then you go to your tie breakers such as head to head. It's certainly far better than un-ranked 7-5 UCLA, 8-4 Nebraska or 8-4 Pitt in the CCG with the threat of knocking your top team out of the playoff. This is even more important for G5 conferences like the MWC and AAC who would be at very high risk of losing their only bid.

And if it comes down to tie breakers that is your own fault for not taking care of business and leaving it to the football gods to pick one. No matter who you pick as the 2nd team (of two tied in rankings), if they win they'll be ranked ahead of the one who wasn't picked.

You are making a problem where none exists. Well if you have an OCD mind I guess it's a problem.

If 3 Big Ten teams finish with a conference record of 8-1 then you’ve got a 3 way tie. I’m talking about conference standings not anyone’s ranking system.

Did you even read the bumped thread detailing all the ties in CONFERENCE standings since the 90s? Explain to me how you’re setting all the ties between teams that didn’t play or among 3+ teams?

You can’t “take care of business” against someone who wasn’t on your schedule.

True but you can also have a 3 way tie like the Big 12 did that year where A beat B, B beat C and C beat A and those 3 best everyone else

(06-20-2021 06:41 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 06:31 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 04:36 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 12:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Divisionless is a hot mess. I looked back at every season where a conference hosted a CCG, and had they been divisionless, you get a messy tie between 2+ teams, often ones that never played, about a 3rd of the time.

This is flat false. There will never be a tie, since you are picking by CFP rankings; those don't have ties.

And if they ever did (which they wont), say with both ranked 11th, then you go to your tie breakers such as head to head. It's certainly far better than un-ranked 7-5 UCLA, 8-4 Nebraska or 8-4 Pitt in the CCG with the threat of knocking your top team out of the playoff. This is even more important for G5 conferences like the MWC and AAC who would be at very high risk of losing their only bid.

And if it comes down to tie breakers that is your own fault for not taking care of business and leaving it to the football gods to pick one. No matter who you pick as the 2nd team (of two tied in rankings), if they win they'll be ranked ahead of the one who wasn't picked.

You are making a problem where none exists. Well if you have an OCD mind I guess it's a problem.

If 3 Big Ten teams finish with a conference record of 8-1 then you’ve got a 3 way tie. I’m talking about conference standings not anyone’s ranking system.

Did you even read the bumped thread detailing all the ties in CONFERENCE standings since the 90s? Explain to me how you’re setting all the ties between teams that didn’t play or among 3+ teams?

You can’t “take care of business” against someone who wasn’t on your schedule.

True but you can also have a 3 way tie like the Big 12 did that year where A beat B, B beat C and C beat A and those 3 best everyone else

Right, but at least when you have divisional play, all 3 of those teams played each other. If you can’t break the tie with H2H, you can look at best record within the division, etc.

You can make apples-to-apples comparisons when they have a set of common opponents

(06-19-2021 10:31 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 05:43 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 05:40 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 02:20 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Without divisions, you can conceivably play through your whole conference faster, even with fewer conference games.

For instance, in a conference with 14 teams, each team can have 3 protected opponents and play half the other 10 every year. So that's 8 games and just 2 years for a full conference play-through.

Same for 15 schools at 4 rivals and rotate 5. That means odd numbers become much more likely on division less.

So in theory the SEC could just take OK and not State.

Odd numbers are still bad for scheduling, even without divisions.

How so? 9 games, 4 rivals, 5 rotate seems pretty straightforward to me. Only issue is that some teams get 5 home games vs. 4.

You just answered your own question... How many teams will have 5 and how many will have 4? You can't have both odd number of teams and games.

(06-19-2021 11:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 06:10 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 03:49 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 12:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 12:32 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Also, since so many CFB fans inexplicably hate rematches, I would think having a CCG between teams that didn't already play would be preferable.

Rematches happen already. The Pac-12 CCG has a 75% chance of being a rematch in any given year. The Big 12 CCG has a 100% chance of being a rematch.

Of course that's with 9 conference games. IMO the proposed 12 team playoff format will push the Pac-12, Big Ten, and Big 12 to reduce to 8 conference games to be on a level playing field with the SEC and ACC.

The division set-up has worked well for the Pac-12 and I would be surprised if they changed that. When they went to divisions, Colorado wanted to be in the South. They wanted to play in a game in Southern California every year for recruiting and their alumni base. Their largest out-of-state alumni base is in Southern California. Utah and both Arizona schools would not want any change as well.

The California schools wanted to play each other every season, so the nine game schedule helps make that work. As an example, USC plays five division games, Stanford and Cal, plus one Oregon school and one Washington state school. The Oregon and Washington schools were unhappy about losing an annual trip to LA, but the schools settled on the current schedule unanimously as a compromise.

Changing to an eight game schedule and dropping the divisions would just cause a lot of unnecessary friction. I think that is why the Pac-12 is pushing for an automatic berth for power conference champions. I think they are wrong and they should be happy with the new proposed playoff set-up. They should push for the SEC and ACC to go to 9 game conference schedules.

Switching to 8 conference games does make scheduling harder but getting rid of divisions should make it easier to schedule everybody. Just get rid of divisions but keep the 9 conference games. The pressure should be on the SEC and ACC to start scheduling 9 games.

You're assuming they want to play everyone regularly. That's not the case except maybe in the Big 10.

That's true. I'll bet Clemson wouldn't mind if they never had to travel to Syracuse, BC or Pitt.

(06-19-2021 12:32 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Also, since so many CFB fans inexplicably hate rematches, I would think having a CCG between teams that didn't already play would be preferable.

I don't know how many fans "hate rematches". I'd guess most ACC fans could wait to see the rematch between Clemson and Notre Dame. And I'd bet that fans of the team that lost the first game would love to have a second chance. For fans of neither team, I imagine many would be indifferent and want to see the two best teams play.

Now, a rematch in consecutive weeks might be less popular. A solution to that would be to schedule a non-conference game in the last week of the season or to schedule your in-conference rival earlier in the year.

One thing I know for sure is that there is no one answer that will make everybody happy. "Divisionless" is really a misnomer. What we are really talking about is deregulation - letting each conference decide for itself what its members want. And they certainly don't need or want my advice about what that is.

(06-19-2021 11:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 06:10 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 03:49 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 12:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 12:32 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Also, since so many CFB fans inexplicably hate rematches, I would think having a CCG between teams that didn't already play would be preferable.

Rematches happen already. The Pac-12 CCG has a 75% chance of being a rematch in any given year. The Big 12 CCG has a 100% chance of being a rematch.

Of course that's with 9 conference games. IMO the proposed 12 team playoff format will push the Pac-12, Big Ten, and Big 12 to reduce to 8 conference games to be on a level playing field with the SEC and ACC.

The division set-up has worked well for the Pac-12 and I would be surprised if they changed that. When they went to divisions, Colorado wanted to be in the South. They wanted to play in a game in Southern California every year for recruiting and their alumni base. Their largest out-of-state alumni base is in Southern California. Utah and both Arizona schools would not want any change as well.

The California schools wanted to play each other every season, so the nine game schedule helps make that work. As an example, USC plays five division games, Stanford and Cal, plus one Oregon school and one Washington state school. The Oregon and Washington schools were unhappy about losing an annual trip to LA, but the schools settled on the current schedule unanimously as a compromise.

Changing to an eight game schedule and dropping the divisions would just cause a lot of unnecessary friction. I think that is why the Pac-12 is pushing for an automatic berth for power conference champions. I think they are wrong and they should be happy with the new proposed playoff set-up. They should push for the SEC and ACC to go to 9 game conference schedules.

Switching to 8 conference games does make scheduling harder but getting rid of divisions should make it easier to schedule everybody. Just get rid of divisions but keep the 9 conference games. The pressure should be on the SEC and ACC to start scheduling 9 games.

You're assuming they want to play everyone regularly. That's not the case except maybe in the Big 10.

I believe that was the original argument. That all the PAC schools seem to want to play the California schools as much as possible. The best way to accomplish that is to play 9 conference games instead of 8. This is true whether there are divisions or not.

If the PAC drops its divisions, I will assume that all the non-California schools would like some guarantee they will play 3 out of 4 California schools every year. Plus the 4 California schools themselves all want to play each other every year. Can that be done with only 8 conference games?

(06-19-2021 07:54 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  Never understood the logic behind having to beat a team twice to be a conference champion. If you lose to the guy you beat during the regular season both teams are 1-1. Why do they get to hoist the trophy?

Well, besides money…the teams are playing with more seasoned squads on a neutral field—most of the time.

(06-20-2021 06:31 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 04:36 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 12:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Divisionless is a hot mess. I looked back at every season where a conference hosted a CCG, and had they been divisionless, you get a messy tie between 2+ teams, often ones that never played, about a 3rd of the time.

This is flat false. There will never be a tie, since you are picking by CFP rankings; those don't have ties.

And if they ever did (which they wont), say with both ranked 11th, then you go to your tie breakers such as head to head. It's certainly far better than un-ranked 7-5 UCLA, 8-4 Nebraska or 8-4 Pitt in the CCG with the threat of knocking your top team out of the playoff. This is even more important for G5 conferences like the MWC and AAC who would be at very high risk of losing their only bid.

And if it comes down to tie breakers that is your own fault for not taking care of business and leaving it to the football gods to pick one. No matter who you pick as the 2nd team (of two tied in rankings), if they win they'll be ranked ahead of the one who wasn't picked.

You are making a problem where none exists. Well if you have an OCD mind I guess it's a problem.

If 3 Big Ten teams finish with a conference record of 8-1 then you’ve got a 3 way tie. I’m talking about conference standings not anyone’s ranking system.

Did you even read the bumped thread detailing all the ties in CONFERENCE standings since the 90s? Explain to me how you’re setting all the ties between teams that didn’t play or among 3+ teams?

You can’t “take care of business” against someone who wasn’t on your schedule.

Tiebreakers have been around forever. It’s impossible to have three undefeated teams. Anything outside of that is inviting a tiebreaker.

(06-20-2021 07:04 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 11:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 06:10 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 03:49 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 12:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Rematches happen already. The Pac-12 CCG has a 75% chance of being a rematch in any given year. The Big 12 CCG has a 100% chance of being a rematch.

Of course that's with 9 conference games. IMO the proposed 12 team playoff format will push the Pac-12, Big Ten, and Big 12 to reduce to 8 conference games to be on a level playing field with the SEC and ACC.

The division set-up has worked well for the Pac-12 and I would be surprised if they changed that. When they went to divisions, Colorado wanted to be in the South. They wanted to play in a game in Southern California every year for recruiting and their alumni base. Their largest out-of-state alumni base is in Southern California. Utah and both Arizona schools would not want any change as well.

The California schools wanted to play each other every season, so the nine game schedule helps make that work. As an example, USC plays five division games, Stanford and Cal, plus one Oregon school and one Washington state school. The Oregon and Washington schools were unhappy about losing an annual trip to LA, but the schools settled on the current schedule unanimously as a compromise.

Changing to an eight game schedule and dropping the divisions would just cause a lot of unnecessary friction. I think that is why the Pac-12 is pushing for an automatic berth for power conference champions. I think they are wrong and they should be happy with the new proposed playoff set-up. They should push for the SEC and ACC to go to 9 game conference schedules.

Switching to 8 conference games does make scheduling harder but getting rid of divisions should make it easier to schedule everybody. Just get rid of divisions but keep the 9 conference games. The pressure should be on the SEC and ACC to start scheduling 9 games.

You're assuming they want to play everyone regularly. That's not the case except maybe in the Big 10.

That's true. I'll bet Clemson wouldn't mind if they never had to travel to Syracuse, BC or Pitt.

Clemson likes the BC game.

^That’d be my rule. Schedule must make it impossible for 3 teams to finish undefeated. That’d virtually necessitate division for scheduling purposes for the ACC and SEC, though you’d still allow two teams from the same hidden, scheduling division to make the CCG.

(06-20-2021 06:46 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 06:41 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 06:31 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 04:36 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 12:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Divisionless is a hot mess. I looked back at every season where a conference hosted a CCG, and had they been divisionless, you get a messy tie between 2+ teams, often ones that never played, about a 3rd of the time.

This is flat false. There will never be a tie, since you are picking by CFP rankings; those don't have ties.

And if they ever did (which they wont), say with both ranked 11th, then you go to your tie breakers such as head to head. It's certainly far better than un-ranked 7-5 UCLA, 8-4 Nebraska or 8-4 Pitt in the CCG with the threat of knocking your top team out of the playoff. This is even more important for G5 conferences like the MWC and AAC who would be at very high risk of losing their only bid.

And if it comes down to tie breakers that is your own fault for not taking care of business and leaving it to the football gods to pick one. No matter who you pick as the 2nd team (of two tied in rankings), if they win they'll be ranked ahead of the one who wasn't picked.

You are making a problem where none exists. Well if you have an OCD mind I guess it's a problem.

If 3 Big Ten teams finish with a conference record of 8-1 then you’ve got a 3 way tie. I’m talking about conference standings not anyone’s ranking system.

Did you even read the bumped thread detailing all the ties in CONFERENCE standings since the 90s? Explain to me how you’re setting all the ties between teams that didn’t play or among 3+ teams?

You can’t “take care of business” against someone who wasn’t on your schedule.

True but you can also have a 3 way tie like the Big 12 did that year where A beat B, B beat C and C beat A and those 3 best everyone else

Right, but at least when you have divisional play, all 3 of those teams played each other. If you can’t break the tie with H2H, you can look at best record within the division, etc.

You can make apples-to-apples comparisons when they have a set of common opponents

If A beat B, B beats C, and C beats A and that is the only loss for each school you are deadlocked.

If all 3 of those schools were in the same division it would be even worse because instead of 1 out of 3 getting jumped, 2 out of 3 would be jipped

(06-20-2021 07:21 AM)ken d Wrote:  One thing I know for sure is that there is no one answer that will make everybody happy. "Divisionless" is really a misnomer. What we are really talking about is deregulation - letting each conference decide for itself what its members want. And they certainly don't need or want my advice about what that is.

Well if you don’t have divisions you really don’t need a ccg at all

(06-20-2021 09:38 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 07:21 AM)ken d Wrote:  One thing I know for sure is that there is no one answer that will make everybody happy. "Divisionless" is really a misnomer. What we are really talking about is deregulation - letting each conference decide for itself what its members want. And they certainly don't need or want my advice about what that is.

Well if you don’t have divisions you really don’t need a ccg at all

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template..._standings

(06-20-2021 09:38 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 07:21 AM)ken d Wrote:  One thing I know for sure is that there is no one answer that will make everybody happy. "Divisionless" is really a misnomer. What we are really talking about is deregulation - letting each conference decide for itself what its members want. And they certainly don't need or want my advice about what that is.

Well if you don’t have divisions you really don’t need a ccg at all

You do as divisionless could result in 2 undefeated teams

The old 11 team Big 10 had that happen

(06-19-2021 12:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Divisionless is a hot mess. I looked back at every season where a conference hosted a CCG, and had they been divisionless, you get a messy tie between 2+ teams, often ones that never played, about a 3rd of the time.

It also unwinds the entire premise of the 12 team format which is to give everyone in a P5 conference a shot at making the playoffs.

Say for example Northwestern is ranked #15 going into the CCG, they win the CCG over #3 Ohio State and are now ranked #7 in the country. But as the #3 ranked conference champion they are now elevated to #3 in the playoff.

If there are no divisions and #3 Ohio State plays #8 Michigan who whey already beat that shuts out programs like Northwestern from the playoff.

The problem then this 12 team playoff format is trying to solve which is more fair access is then completely tossed out the window if you remove the division requirement for a CCG.

(06-19-2021 09:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 05:06 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 04:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 03:49 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  The California schools wanted to play each other every season, so the nine game schedule helps make that work. As an example, USC plays five division games, Stanford and Cal, plus one Oregon school and one Washington state school. The Oregon and Washington schools were unhappy about losing an annual trip to LA, but the schools settled on the current schedule unanimously as a compromise.

Not unanimously. According to Wilner, the first vote on divisions was 6-6: The California and Arizona schools wanted a south division with those schools, the other six schools voted for Tennis Larry's division split. Tennis Larry ended up winning 7-5 by persuading one of the Arizona schools to change their vote.

If the south division was the 4 California teams and the 2 Arizona teams, and there were 8 conference games instead of 9, the PNW teams would get *exactly* the same number of games vs. the LA teams as they do now.

Current divisions with 9 conference games: The LA teams play both NorCal teams plus 2 of the 4 PNW teams each year. Each PNW team gets 1 of the 2 LA teams on the football schedule every year.

Geographically correct N/S divisions with 8 conference games: The LA teams play 3 of the 6 north division teams each year. Each PNW team gets 1 of the 2 LA teams on the football schedule every year.

The division split and the 9 conference games are just two more items on the very tall pile of Larry's mistakes.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/ne...id=5711336
"There was robust, spirited dialogue about all of these things," commissioner Larry Scott said. "These are very important matters that we were dealing with. I'm just really pleased with the way everyone came together and realized we're building an enterprise that's about to scale in a way these schools have never been part of. It wasn't hard to get people to agree. The fact they agreed unanimously was a very strong statement."

If the South division is the four California schools and the Arizona schools, then Colorado and Utah get screwed. Colorado's entry in the Pac-10 was contingent on them being in the South division.

The division split was not Larry's fault. To play a CCG at that time, they had to have 12 schools and two divisions. That was in 2010. The Pac-12 had been playing a nine game schedule since 2006, before Larry got the job. Larry has committed a litany of mistakes as commissioner, but the nine game schedule and the division split are not two of them.

C'mon, man. Surely you've been following sports long enough to know that pretty much everything is announced to be unanimous.

Colorado and Utah wouldn't be screwed by being in the other division. The bottom line is that Larry bent over backwards to give special favors to the schools that had been in the league for 5 minutes at the expense of the schools that had been in the league since day one. And like everything else, the presidents were damn fools to go along with what Larry wanted, and even more foolish to have not fired him several years ago.

I remember this real well and it was unanimous after months of negotiating.
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2010/10/21/...-and-ucla/

From Wilner's article:
Scott said the division alignment was approved unanimously by the league’s 12 presidents and chancellors. (Utah and Colorado, which will join the league next summer, have voting rights.) But it came about after months of negotiations that included “a fair amount of horse trading,” according to Stanford athletic director Bob Bowlsby.

“That’s what everybody wanted, the chance to play the Southern California schools,” Cal coach Jeff Tedford said. “It’s positive for us as far as recruiting is concerned.”

The fight was over playing road games in Southern California and the California schools playing each other each season. Once that was agreed upon, it was unanimous. Colorado got what they wanted and I am sure they are not going to give that up. Utah was going wherever Colorado went. They were just happy to be in the Pac-12. Utah has recruited Southern California well, much better than Colorado to this point, so I doubt they would be happy with a different scheduling arrangement. It would make sense to make no changes in the division set-up.

I agree that Larry Scott has been a disaster as commissioner and that he should have been fired years ago. I was just pointing out that he was not responsible for the nine game conference schedule, which was adopted in 2006, and that the division set-up was approved unanimously. I don't think a power conference should give up divisions unless they fear that their conference champion will not make the playoffs. Putting aside the 2020 pandemic season, there is no evidence that would happen in the Pac-12 based on the 2014 through 2019 seasons.

(06-20-2021 10:56 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 12:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Divisionless is a hot mess. I looked back at every season where a conference hosted a CCG, and had they been divisionless, you get a messy tie between 2+ teams, often ones that never played, about a 3rd of the time.

It also unwinds the entire premise of the 12 team format which is to give everyone in a P5 conference a shot at making the playoffs.

Say for example Northwestern is ranked #15 going into the CCG, they win the CCG over #3 Ohio State and are now ranked #7 in the country. But as the #3 ranked conference champion they are now elevated to #3 in the playoff.

If there are no divisions and #3 Ohio State plays #8 Michigan who whey already beat that shuts out programs like Northwestern from the playoff.

The problem then this 12 team playoff format is trying to solve which is more fair access is then completely tossed out the window if you remove the division requirement for a CCG.

SEC won’t go divisionless at first, partially for this reason, partially to keep “East vs West”. Big Ten can choose to or not to hurt Northwestern in that scenario.

(06-20-2021 06:31 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 04:36 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-19-2021 12:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Divisionless is a hot mess. I looked back at every season where a conference hosted a CCG, and had they been divisionless, you get a messy tie between 2+ teams, often ones that never played, about a 3rd of the time.

This is flat false. There will never be a tie, since you are picking by CFP rankings; those don't have ties.

And if they ever did (which they wont), say with both ranked 11th, then you go to your tie breakers such as head to head. It's certainly far better than un-ranked 7-5 UCLA, 8-4 Nebraska or 8-4 Pitt in the CCG with the threat of knocking your top team out of the playoff. This is even more important for G5 conferences like the MWC and AAC who would be at very high risk of losing their only bid.

And if it comes down to tie breakers that is your own fault for not taking care of business and leaving it to the football gods to pick one. No matter who you pick as the 2nd team (of two tied in rankings), if they win they'll be ranked ahead of the one who wasn't picked.

You are making a problem where none exists. Well if you have an OCD mind I guess it's a problem.

If 3 Big Ten teams finish with a conference record of 8-1 then you’ve got a 3 way tie. I’m talking about conference standings not anyone’s ranking system.

Did you even read the bumped thread detailing all the ties in CONFERENCE standings since the 90s? Explain to me how you’re setting all the ties between teams that didn’t play or among 3+ teams?

You can’t “take care of business” against someone who wasn’t on your schedule.

So what? They will have different rankings.

It's about getting into the playoffs with one or both teams, not satisfying your OCD. This is not the NFL or any other Pro league where all things are as equal as possible, where tie breakers go down to things like points differential on road games on Tuesdays. In college ALL 12 games are considered in the rankings, not just your 8 or 9 conference games. The odds that the B1G will have three 11-1 schools is low. But even so, there is a tie breaker, the CFP rankings.

And it's not as if these ties don't already happen in Divisions. They do, and they are resolved by whatever the rules of the conference. Usually it's head to head followed by rankings,and sometimes just rankings.

The B1G back before I reached adulthood had an OCD based socialist set up like you seem to favor. In the event of a tie they would send the school who hadn't been to the Rose Bowl for the longest period of time to Pasadena. But after they didn't send a clearly stronger team on this rule they changed and opened up Bowls to other B1G schools. (Pre-Penn State days)

You use rankings pure and simple. It's what the Big 12 went to.

If you have three 11-1 schools, they are probably all getting in the Playoffs. It's hard to see any P5 school with an 11-1 record not getting in the Playoffs. You're scenario only makes sense if you have three 9-3 schools tied. But at this point you want the highest ranked to win so you can get ONE school in the playoffs if you are P5. If you are G5 game over already.

The basic problem you have is that you have completely lost sight of the objective. Some pseudo socialist fairness is not the objective. The objective is one thing only, to improve the odds of getting one or two or more schools in the Playoff.