There was a saying started six years ago on what was then called Twitter that’s been bouncing around my head lately, and perhaps also those of some college football administrators:
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, here comes the results of my misdeeds.
Some years ago, in fact shortly after that phrase entered the lexicon, I wrote this: “Another recommendation for the SEC: Preserve the history on your shirts Keep Traditions – Lose Divisions.” It was not the first time I make the argument and other writers also make it also too.
Weirdly enough, they did. So did most other conferences. Everyone came to the same conclusion: Annual meetings arising from the division structure had turned into predictable and unentertaining performances as conferences expanded in size. Add to it realignment, it was far easier to demouse divisions than to rearrange them, and it would foster better games — which it has done.
The only problem: We now have potential chaos in deciding who plays in conference championship games.
Those are found in larger conferences, where many of the top teams don’t play against each other; will be ties and pairing structures. The Big Ten and ACC each have three currently unbeaten teams but none of them have played one another. Within the SEC, there are now five teams having one or zero losses within the conference and it appears almost certain they will proceed to the fourth criteria, which is the combined record of every SEC team’s opponents. It can come that in the end of the season, Georgia will be No. 1 in the country but will not be playing in the SEC championship game. And other conferences have silly scenarios.
Oh, I see, eliminating divisions was not good! If you had divisions, people that are in divisions A played each other people that are in division B they just match up the winner of each division and that’s it, clean system right? Did we start regretting our actions hence forward?
Nah. Not in the slightest.
There is much to do to remain nondiscriminatory; we have to remember why there were divisions in the first place. Such routines for playing fixed kind of teams where each team play about six or seven teams in a year and very few, only two or three from the other division. In the old format when there was one permanent clash with the other division some encounter happened only once in two cycles or 12 years. Georgia still hasn’t played at Texas A&M, but replacing those games with annual games against the same SEC East rivals like South Carolina, Kentucky and Vanderbilt would add numbers.
There had to be a shift, and there would be with or without Oklahoma and Texas becoming part of the Big XII. But that amplified the move, and the outcome has been most superb games for a given season.
Alabama-Georgia? That was a cross-division game in our old format and was not planned for this season.
Georgia-Texas? Another interdivision game which might have not be held. Upsets like Vanderbilt against Alabama, Arkansas against Tennessee that leads to a field storming, South Carolina nearly upsetting Alabama, LSU making a comeback against South Carolina … all the once cross-division games that might not happen anymore. Even within the Big Ten take Oregon over Ohio State, USC going to Michigan, maybe they would not have been scheduled this year had divisions been in place?
Eliminating divisions has added more suspense in the regular season this year, and, in the proceeding years. In the SEC format every team will face each other at least twice in four years; in the following weeks we will see Texas A&M at South Carolina, Georgia at Ole Miss and LSU at Florida.
Yes, deciding on the teams that will be making the conference championship may not be everyone’s cup of tea. In may even turn into an uninteresting fight. But it’s a worthwhile trade off for the kind of games variety that we are seeing.
That should be the basis: Have a good regular season, then we’ll work with what we’ve got. Never resolve one small issue by making something bigger disappear or become less significant.
Divisions also were not always accurate in identifying winners. Steve Spurrier was annoyed his South Carolina team thrashed Georgia in 2012 but South Carolina lost two other games and Georgia didn’t lose again. At times the division winner relied on who was fortunate to get the friendly cross-division fixtures during that season.
And if someone is left out of their conference championship on an obscure tiebreaker, the system leaves room to mitigate that: The new College Football Playoff system that allows at least three teams apart from the title winners to compete in playoffs probably more.
Perhaps having conference championship games at all is the problem? Perhaps. As far as nominations for a winner go, that’s a horse each conference will have to trot alone, although you have to pick one somehow, especially if the Playoff keeps sending automatic entries for champions.
Does the SEC need to go to nine games ? More likely, but still it means that teams will not play the other six teams at all. If there is any hope of avoiding a 15-game schedule, then there will not be a true round-robin.
A better solution here would be if mega-conferences did not exist at all. This is common with annual meetings that consist of smaller teams where all the teams face of each other. What a concept. But too late for that.
One out-of-the-box idea: Switching divisions, this way you at least have some sort of division for Championship game use but schedule will be more diverse. Worth considering? It potentially can be, if administrators are willing to at least attempt to make it work logistically. Or simply tolerate the new system, because all in all it is not all that terrible.
College football is not perfect. It always has been and probably always will be. But we’re seeing something great this year, intriguing matchups and closer games, created by a variety that was held back in the world of divisions. If it means some issues for the conference championship games, fine. We should still be okay with the outcome of our actions.
