NCAA to Deregulate Conf CGs?

[GatorGray]

Legislation allowing for the deregulation of conference championship games is now expected to be passed by 2016, CBSSports.com has learned.


The move would directly impact the Big 12 and ACC, which developed the legislation. The Big 12, which is the only Power Five league without a championship game, is merely seeking the option of staging such a contest with 10 teams. The ACC's ultimate intentions with a 14-team league in football, one which already holds a championship game, are not clear.


Current NCAA rules state a league must have at least 12 teams in order to play a conference title game. Those teams also must play a round-robin within each division.


The legislation is now expected to move forward after being delayed somewhat by NCAA governance reform. CBSSports.com reported last year that legislation had formally been submitted.


"I think there's some belief that ACC would play three divisions, have two highest-ranked play in postseason," said Bob Bowlsby, chairman of the new NCAA Football Oversight Committee. "Really, nobody cares how you determine your champion. It should be a conference-level decision.


"But because the ACC has persisted in saying, 'We're not sure what we'll do,' there's probably a little bit of a shadow over it. In the end, I don't think it'll be able to hold it up. We'll probably have it in place for '16."

CLICK ME

This post was edited on 4/18 10:02 PM by GatorGray

 

[HathBrad]

Who cares? I'll answer that. The playoff committee cares. A conference with a setup that increases the chances of the champion being undefeated has a better chance of being picked for the team national playoff.

For example, these things would aid playoff chances:

- a setup that minimizes the risk of conference leaders having to play each other again in a conference championship rematch, potentially knocking out an otherwise undefeated team,

- a setup that allows a conference to choose the higher rated of two teams as its champion, thereby increasing the chances that it's highest rated team gets the benefit of the "conference champion" moniker. The Big 12 tried to do this last year. Now it sounds like the ACC is trying to play that game.

- of course being in a smaller conference increases your odds of being the champion. The SEC champ had to be better than 13 other teams vying for the championship. The Big 12 champ only s to beat out NINE other teams. That's 44% more teams that an SEC team had to beat out for a conference championship than does a Big 12 team. Not to mention those teams are also much stronger in the SEC. That's just not fair. Heck, if there are no rules, let's just call the SEC East a "conference" and the SEC West a "conference," then we get two teams with the benefit of the "conference champion" moniker.

Bottom line, the committee should not punish a 1 loss team much for not winning the SEC, and should not credit a team much for winning the Big 12 or ACC. All conferences should be of the same size, structure and similar strength to be fair. Gerrymandering conference size and structure should not be rewarded with gaining an advantage in the playoff committee selection process.

 

[LizardGrad89]

Let's reduce 1-A to 64 teams. Eight GEOGRAPHICALLY CREATED conferences of 8 teams each, 8 team playoff. If you like, each conference can have two divisions of four teams, and a conference championship game, then an 8 team playoff.

But of course, the world isn't just football. This would have an impact on all the other sports.