(12-02-2022 11:19 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-02-2022 11:03 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Sure. But let's keep in mind that this field would not look the same in the expanded CFP structure. CCGs will work differently.

Georgia would be playing Alabama or Tennessee rather than LSU. Michigan would be playing Penn State or Ohio State rather than Purdue. Clemson could well face Florida State rather than North Carolina.

Conferences on the whole will prefer to do without divisions in order to get their two strongest playoff contenders into the CCG. They don't need bid stealers.

I'd agree with you on the SEC/Big Ten. But in the ACC, UNC would have been it instead of Florida St- 2 conference losses vs 3.

(oh, and Georgia would be playing Tennessee due to h2h sweep of LSU and Alabama. Tennessee might be playing themselves out of a playoff spot).

These are quibbles. All questions like this would depend on the tie-breakers conferences set.

A conference might conceivably value CFP committee rankings over conference record for CCG selection. After all, a key goal of the divisionless structure is to produce a CCG winner best positioned for playoff success. In rare cases where record and ranking differ between two teams, it might well make sense to let the committee decide it.

The observation stands: the matchups would actually fall out very differently from what the OP shows if we really apply future procedures to today's field.

(12-04-2022 02:15 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-02-2022 11:19 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-02-2022 11:03 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Sure. But let's keep in mind that this field would not look the same in the expanded CFP structure. CCGs will work differently.

Georgia would be playing Alabama or Tennessee rather than LSU. Michigan would be playing Penn State or Ohio State rather than Purdue. Clemson could well face Florida State rather than North Carolina.

Conferences on the whole will prefer to do without divisions in order to get their two strongest playoff contenders into the CCG. They don't need bid stealers.

I'd agree with you on the SEC/Big Ten. But in the ACC, UNC would have been it instead of Florida St- 2 conference losses vs 3.

(oh, and Georgia would be playing Tennessee due to h2h sweep of LSU and Alabama. Tennessee might be playing themselves out of a playoff spot).

These are quibbles. All questions like this would depend on the tie-breakers conferences set.

A conference might conceivably value CFP committee rankings over conference record for CCG selection. After all, a key goal of the divisionless structure is to produce a CCG winner best positioned for playoff success. In rare cases where record and ranking differ between two teams, it might well make sense to let the committee decide it.

The observation stands: the matchups would actually fall out very differently from what the OP shows if we really apply future procedures to today's field.

I really doubt any major conference would ignore the conference win loss record in choosing their conference champion. So no, I don't think that Florida St would have gone to the CCG over UNC at all, no matter the ratings.

(12-04-2022 11:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I really doubt any major conference would ignore the conference win loss record in choosing their conference champion.
....

It's not a matter of 'ignore.' It's a matter of priority in relevant factors--possible tiebreakers--and priorities are set by conferences. We'll see in time how division-less conferences assign priority between factors like win-loss record in conference, win-loss in season overall, and ranking by CFP committee. No one here knows yet. Or decides. We'll see.

A conference that gives high priority to CFP ranking would not be ignoring record. It would basically be letting the committee decide how much each factor matters. Essentially, a conference would be letting the CFP committee make the CCG selection. This makes sense if your goal is to get a team into the playoffs. (Most factors will line up pretty well most years anyway.) The CCG would literally be selected for like a CFP first-round playoff game.

Meanwhile, the point stands. With division-less scheduling on the way, the CCG matchups would be different than shown in the thought experiment at the top of the thread. This year's LSU would not be playing this year's Georgia in one CCG, Purdue would not be playing Michigan in another, and arguably one or two other games might be differently matched. Division-less scheduling changes things quite a bit.

(12-05-2022 08:10 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 11:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I really doubt any major conference would ignore the conference win loss record in choosing their conference champion.
....

It's not a matter of 'ignore.' It's a matter of priority in tiebreakers, and those are set by conferences. We'll see in time how division-less conferences assign priority between factors like win-loss record in conference, win-loss in season overall, and ranking by CFP committee. No one here really knows yet. Or decides. So we'll see.

Meanwhile, the point stands. With division-less scheduling on the way, the CCG matchups would be different than shown in the thought experiment at the top of the thread. LSU would not have been playing Georgia in one CCG, Purdue would not have been playing Michigan in another, and arguably one or two other games might be differently matched.

tiebreakers I agree with. But that would require them to be tied in the conference. If the final records were what was this year in the ACC, with UNC having 6-2 and FSU being 5-3, it'd be UNC in the CCG. I don't think that would ever change at all, nor should it.

now what would change is the opponents mix for both teams, which could impact the conference games and thus the final record- maybe FSU and UNC play each other and that changes things. Then it's h2h totally.

I think the PAC-12 has a good set of Tiebreakers

1. Head to Head (in 3+ teams, the tied teams must all play each other or it gets skipped)
2. Win Percentage Against Next Highest Opponent (go in order through each common opponent)
3. Win Percentage Against All Common Opponents (2 and 3 are switched in 3+ Team Tiebreakers)
4. Highest Conference Strength of Schedule
5. Number of Total Wins (limited to 1 FCS win), only done in 2 team Tiebreakers
6. Highest ranking by SportSource Analytics
7. Coin Toss