This is where the other majors conferences, and should be reflected in the sentiments of the playoff selection committee, need to express disdain for such a tactic. The others are faced with the CCG challenges. Alabama had to survive a tight CCG with Georgia to get to a title game.

Fear of losing a CCG should not be a reason not to have one, and then be rewarded with a playoff spot.

This Notre Dame 'a la carte' methodology need not be extended to OU and Texas. I suppose they all want to be playing a 'Pitt' that just can't put a game away with numerous opportunities.

I am not against the fine group of B12 schools, but am for consistency, and all that want to be there, face similar hurddles at least in timing, numbers, and procedures.

Even if the B12 adds two that are not championship-type contenders, it's at least saying they'll work with the norm in terms of format.

As to ND, this 'special criteria' nonsense needs to cease. Let the ACC's potential 'rep' suffer a few times because of this accommodation deal, and see if some in the conference change their tune about it.

I concur that Notre Dame's arrangement seeks the best of all worlds.
One could claim that they shy away from competition, and there are years in the past where their schedule was rather weak.
Their schedule this past year was fairly loaded with top-notch programs that experienced a bit of a down year (Michigan, Michigan Sate, Oklahoma, USC, Stanford).
I hate Notre Dame, and think they should be in a football confernece,
but I have to admit that anybody who schedules such opponents really can not be accused of shying away from competition.

Yeah, they play Navy. And the SEC teams play some FCS or Sun-Belt schools 1 or 2 games / year, because they need a break.


Regarding the Big XII, a round robin is the format that everyone USED TO GO WITH.
Everybody plays everyone else. ONCE ! (except the stupid Big 10, where you DIDN't play everyone else).

In my opinion, the full round-robin is superior to the 2 divisions and CCG, because everyone plays the same 9 opponents (in a given year, one team doesn't get the weak opponents,
while another gets the toughies form the opposite division),
AND the CCG concept suffers from 2) problems - potential re-matches, and the situation where the 2 best teams are actually in the same division (see Alabama and LSU 2 years ago).

Once you go to 12 in football, you are essentially forced to 2 divisions and a CCG, but that format is hardly better than 10 schools with a full round-robin.

I'm not fully convinced the Big XII school holds up with one less game on the books against those in other conferences with the CCG. Some of the non-conference games the Big XII teams are scheduling...I don't know if it gets over on the computers and the committees without a lot of lobbying, which will not go over well with those having CCGs.

It's not a good one-two punch. Quality wins, not spiffy records. And 13 is becoming the new normal, not twelve.

In a 12+ conference, one division is going to be stronger than the other for each given year. In the SEC, it has shifted east, then west. That suggests decent balance, over time, at least among the top contenders in each division.

Agree Cutter, I expect thirteen is the new norm for championship play. The interesting factor to see is if a conference shall be able to land 2 in the playoff picture.

Tute79, while it is true a conference can have its two (maybe 3) strongest teams in the same division; we have also seen before a conference having multiple teams ranked nationally in the top 4 or 5 at or near the close of the season.

In addition to the big money, I do believe, to some, the idea about "super-conferences" was to have 4 total with each having a rep in the playoffs. If that complete monopoly becomes the case in the future, there's no need for a selection committee, just a clearance group.

They'll never be equality in scheduling. It is true, some schools land top bowls by avoiding even some tough in-conference competition some years, and loading the schedule with an abundance of home games and lightweight OOCs'.

Round-robin has its merits, given each conference member has played all others. It also may imply a 10-team conference has supposedly played 9 quality games. But a larger conference that plays 8, plus another BCS-type foe (or two) from elsewhere, could have an equally tougher, or tougher overall schedule.

Unless everyone plays everyone else beforehand, there's no complete objective measure. Even then, who plays whom when and where, impacts.

The 9 round-robin even has some unsettling. One school shall play 5 home conference games, while another plays 4 at home. While it rotates each year, for the given year, there's a degree of inbalance.

The SEC, for example, has had some intense discussions about cross-division games and rotation. One school can complain they have it tougher than another divisional neighbor. But few want to relinquish some of the cherished cross-overs.

I expect the B12 is going to continue with 10 for awhile; observe the results, and see if their format gets them there regularly. It is a conference that wants to projects tightness, even if forced to; then down the road, there will be another eruption where some changes shall happen.

Personally, i would like to see Slive, Delany and Scott get together and create a standard for number of conference games (at least 9, possibly 10), set standards for OOC scheduling (ie banning FCS matchups and requiring at least 1 OOC game against a Power 5 opponent), and determining which members of the Big 12 and ACC will be permitted to be a part of College Football's New World Order and which conferences they will be a part of.

I think it might actually be advantageous if members of Mike Slive's conference were to split with the Eastern half taking the cream of the ACC and the Western half taking the cream of the Big 12. Delany would be promised that Notre Dame would be blackballed by all the major conferences unless they submit to joining the Big Ten as a full member.

fighting muskie,
Here's some SEC coaches' comments about the 8 vs 9 conference games issue. Obviously, there are 2 sides of opinion with regard to this.

Alabama is geographically central in the SEC and all their big rivals are within conference. 'Bama has more scheduling flexibility on this. Some others in the SEC may have to give up some traditional OOC games, or ask their OOC rivals to perhaps move such games to earlier in the season. A lot of fans would fuss about that.

You hit on this. If they (SEC) were to go to nine as others, I would suggest that "all" conference members must schedule at least one (perhaps a regular) OOC from a BCS-type conference. If attitudes improved, some rivalry games could be restored as OOCs': Tex./Tex. A&M, Mizzou/Kansas, etc.

Such would not resolve the B12's CCG question, but it would make the regular seasons more similar across the spectrum. Such could hurt mid-major type leagues that depend on "money-games" for revenue and exposure. Maybe there could be agreements also to play one or two of such each season.

As to Notre Dame, their impressive history is respected. But big conferences need to stop enabling them with special status and circumstances to make them look inclusive with big conferences initiatives and objectives.

http://www.gogamecocks.com/2013/05/28/3 ... gher.html#

On a related factor, I would also like to see a cap of 16 on conference size. Some of the '9' conference play calls, could be indirectly related to certain expansion interests for later.

I sort of base my criteria on number of conference games to be that number which allows everyone to play the teams in the opposite division "reasonably often".
Basically you need to play at least 2 from the other division, each year on a rotation basis. The rivalry game does not count toward this.

SEC has the "cross-division rivalry". Some are stupid - South Carolina - Arkansas... did they pair the 2 new-comers Mizzou and A&M ?
Bama has to play Auburn and Tennesssee, so their Bama-Tennessee cross-over game is essential to them.
6 + 1 + 1 means that you rotate through the other division every 6 years. So someone's 4 years in college may not see certain pairings.
If SEC went to 16, and Alabama / Auburn both went to east (Missouri back to West), that may give an alignment where the corss-over could be eliminated.
They could then play 7 + 2 and hit everyone every 4 years.

I think B1G said there will be a rivalry for Indiana - Purdue each year, since they are separated. So those 2 will have 6 (+1) +2 each year, while the rest of B1G has 6 + 3.

I guess ACC will be 6 + 3, with Notre Dame rotation in addition to that ?

PAC plays 5 + 2 rivals + 2 = 9. That is how they were able to get away with splitting up Cal/Stanford from USC/UCLA. Decent arrangement - it works well for the PAC at 12.

With expansion, the regular cross-division rivalry changes a bit.

South Carolina - Texas A&M (SC agreed with it, preferred this instead of Ark.; teams never met before in fb; have geographic ends meet).
Arkansas - Mizzou (gives Mizzou in the east division, a border opponent in the west division)
Georgia - Auburn (unchanged - retains big rivalry)
Vanderbilt - Ole Miss (unchanged - Vandy certainly wanted to retain it; others may have complained about usually easier opponents matchup)
Kentucky - Miss. State (unchanged - not border states - but each comfortable with it - some suggested another usually not a very top tier matchup)
Florida - LSU (unchanged - One Les Miles complained why they have it so tough. And, blah, blah)
Alabama - Tenn. (unchanged - 'Bama complains, but does not want to change it).

They changed the orginal system from 2 regular cross-overs plus one rotation. I liked it. But there were some of the same 'ole complaints about who has it easier (or tougher).
For example, South Carolina's orginal cross-overs were Mississippi State and Arkansas. When they went to one cross-over, Mississippi State was dropped from SC's schedule (a developing rivalry with a record of close games). MSU kept Kentucky while SC was dropped.
No doubt, such decisions were influenced by the level of newness to the conference, old cherished rivalries, connecting the extreme geographical ends of the conference, compatibility judgments, big money games for TV, and levels of institutional power.

I do believe Slive has tried to be fair and reasonable in all this, taking in all considerations. They always seem to reach a consensus of acceptance.

I don't want to sound biased, but LSU, Alabama, and Auburn have sounded real petty, at times, about scheduling.

If or when the B12 expands, they should seek to work this stuff out ahead of time, rather than add, then resolve who plays whom. Newbes' shall be told basically what they will need to accept.

I expect the SEC to routinely send more than one most years. And I think that's really bad for the Big XII when those other 2-3 spots will be up for grabs by schools all likely sporting a thirteenth game. I know the Big XII thinks their name power will get them through this...I think they will have to annually create death-schedules in order to keep up; yearly agreements with some of the other Power 5's and far away from CUSA, SBC, and the AAC.

Where I think the Big XII caves on the expansion matter, if they stay at ten for the next few years, will be due to the unrest in the AAC. If the future looks more like scheduling Power 5 games and less Go5'ers, the AAC schools are going to have to get into a bidding war of who will play the "body bag" games for less money (and this is what I believe the B1G was inferring about regarding the MAC). CUSA and SBC are loaded with FCS upgrades...I suspect they'll take anything to play a game. That's not quite the option AAC programs can afford.

The Big XII will be hearing from programs in the MWC, AAC, and maybe still CUSA. All will want access, and will probably do anything to get a better shot at it. The Big XII would be wise to unsettle that competitive bloc, should it be realized.

At last! I Big Ten fan and an SEC fan agree on something! All kidding aside, if schools are going to be choked up about needing the FCS home game for revenue purposes then their should be a push to establish a "preseason" game--every school has the option of playing an FCS foe in August before the normal 12 game slate that doesn't count toward statistics or each team's record. That opens the schedule up for more meaningful OOC games as well as a 9-game conference slate.

I'm thinking that the 2 SEC team scenario may happen less frequesntly than you think.

Going forward, the Big 5 conferences schools will be roling in $20-30 million TV money. They should get all the prize recruits.
And if a Boise State goes 12-0 and wins the MWC CCG they may have a hard time climbing into the top 4, especially when a selection committee thinks
"this is why we set aside that slot for the Group of 5 conferences - BSU can have that. Their schedule was obviously so much weaker than the Big 5 schools,
so we'll use give the benefit of the doubt to our 1-loss Big 5 Conference teams, rather than a Group of 5 school, based on strength of schedule.

I will agree that a lot of years, the SEC may have 3-4 teams on a par with the top team in the PAC, B1G, or ACC.
However, I feel the selection committee will try to sub-consciously respond to "who does the viewing public want to see play" a bit, and skew their voting toward
the 4 semi-finalists representing at least 3 and typically 4 of the Big 5 conferences.
I know that 2 years ago, when the BCS spat out LSU & Alabama as #1 and #2LSU, a lot of people (including myself) preferred to see another match-up.
Actually Alabama probably deserved to be ranked #2 (and proved they were very good, when they beat LSU in the NCG), but re-matches SUCK to watch.
Re-matches de-value the outcome of the first game between the 2 teams. I think PERHAPS human beings on a Selection Committee will also want to avoid re-matches.
If they do end up with 2 teams from the same conference, they may seed them in opposite semi-finals, figuring that 1 is likely to lose and thus the re-match is avoided.

The Big 12 royally screwed up by not adding Louisville.
By staying at 10 they are vulnerable to being broken up.
They need to go to 12 and have a CCG to play with the big boys.
They need to expand the footprint - no more Texas schools.
It's about TV money more than quality of play - what markets do you bring.
Adding up all the above, the most logical choices are New Mexico (Albuquerque market) and Colorado State (Denver market).

Tute79,
Two years ago Alabama was selected because of the coaches poll was slewed by the voting of the Missouri coach - who voted Alabama #2 and Oklahoma St. as 15 or 20. It was politics. Oklahoma St. won their conference and Alabama did not. As to Alabama being better by beating LSU, I heard from a really good friend of mine that LSU almost had a fight in their locker room just prior to game time over a quarterback issue. With LSU being ready to fight each other - there is no way that they could have won the NCG! So the Alabama argument on they were better because they beat LSU does not hold water. The point is Alabama should not have been in that game. They did not win their division, and they did not win their conference. Oklahoma St. won their conference and that should have been a major point for going to the NCG, but as I pointed out above, politics intervened.
Now that I am done with that rant , I can say that the B12 needs to add a CCG to keep pace with the other major conferences and not get left behind. So how does this scenario strike everyone? :
Add - New Mexico, Colorado St., U. South Florida , and U. Central Florida.
This gives them Florida for recruiting and some new western markets.

They didn't royally screw up on not taking Louisville. Where it concerns football, the Big XII got the best two programs available (regardless if WVU can deliver based on the travel issues). Basketball? How does Louisville get back to the east when its pipeline is severed?

Plus, Louisville would have demanded a Florida partner for themselves, ala USF. Louisville football without a Florida pipeline = crap. Does the Big XII really need a Florida school that isn't at the FSU or Miami level? And USF is a HUGE step down from those two, with UCF being even further down.

I can imagine a Big XII where instead of WVU and TCU it was UL and USF...and what I imagine didn't last very long. Plus, Louisville sees itself as an eastern school...the only thing that would make them change their mind was success in its major sports, and not money alone.

The B12 does not need small market MWC schools.

The B12 could use major market Florida schools.