ACC Divisions, why not round robin?

[floridajacket]

I'm fine with a championship game. It puts all the marbles on the table and it gets a clear-cut winner, unlike the Big Televen annual insanity of tiebreakers. Now, only if the divisions were geographic instead of the asinine "Atlantic" and "Coastal."

 

[WracerX]

An alternative would be to do what the NFL does and use the point margins of the top 3's head-to-head games. It could encourage running up the score, but I don't think running up the score is usually an issue when you're playing a team you're tied with in conference. OU would have gone under this method as well and they probably are the best team of the three right now.

Point differential between the three teams would have been a reasonable way to settle it.

 

[SuperToe]

I can't imagine that being true, but the NCAA has done dumber things. I know conferences with less than 12 members cannot have one, but I dont think it specifies how they do it.

I looked it up, and the rules do specifically state that you can have a conference championship only if you have a conference with 12 or more times and the conference is divided into divisions. IIRC, it was a rule put in to allow a I-AA conference to have a championship game to determine their automatic qualifier for the playoffs. The SEC noted that the rule wasn't specific to that conference, and took advantage of the loophole to expand to 12 teams, create two divisions, and have a championship of their own.

FWIW, I'd like to see the NCAA eliminate the division requirement, so that you could have a conference championship game in any conference where they don't play a full round-robin schedule (Big 10, hint, hint). I don't think the current rule is dumb, it's just too restrictive.

 

[Ish]

I'd say 8 conference games, out of 12, and have folks cycle on and off your schedule. Two best conference records play in the championship game. Have tiebreakers go back to conference SOS using the old SOS equation from the original BCS formula, where 2/3 of it is your opponent's winning percentage, and 1/3 is your oppononent's opponent's winning percentage.

I wouldn't like that, because some teams would have harder/easier schedules than others...so you really couldn't tell who was the best team

 

[WracerX]

FWIW, I'd like to see the NCAA eliminate the division requirement, so that you could have a conference championship game in any conference where they don't play a full round-robin schedule (Big 10, hint, hint). I don't think the current rule is dumb, it's just too restrictive.

Back during expansion, the ACC tried to get the PAC-10 and Big 11 to petition the NCAA to drop the number of members needed for a championship game down to 10 (we only really wanted Miami). Neither of them wanted it. In effect, those two are just one "super" conference who's championship game is the Rose Bowl.

 

[MacDaddy2]

I wouldn't like that, because some teams would have harder/easier schedules than others...so you really couldn't tell who was the best team

Ish, it is not any different than the current structure. Division strength will fluctuate from year to year and in certain years the division race may come down to the non-divisional schedule. For example, in 2009:

GT @ FSU, Clemson, Wake

VT BC, @Maryland, NC State

I know which schedule i would prefer.

 

[Ish]

Ish, it is not any different than the current structure. Division strength will fluctuate from year to year and in certain years the division race may come down to the non-divisional schedule. For example, in 2009:

GT @ FSU, Clemson, Wake

VT BC, @Maryland, NC State

I know which schedule i would prefer.

that's fine, but beej was promoting a "round borin"...and it's not one