re: Why has the dissolution of SEC divisions not been publicly discussed at a serious level?

quote:

---

The NCAA DIDN'T remove the requirement of divisions. They said for cg's you have either (A) have divisions OR (B) play EVERYBODY in the conf. in round-robin scheduling. The B12 didn't need a cg since their small size already determined a conf. winner.

The tie-breaker is NOT overplayed. Say you have 4 teams @ 6-2. Teams A&B share 1 common opponent (whom they beat). Teams C&D share 2 common opponents (whom they also beat). What order are you going to put them & why?

Lastly, the cg winners SHOULD be automatically in the playoffs. WHY create a system with 4 slots when you have 5 groups participating? &, as we've seen, allow a conf. to have 2 members (possibly more) in the po group?

---

1. IF the NCAA changed the rule at the request of the Big XII, they would do the same for the SEC. Who is going to lobby against it? No one has a vested interest in preserving the current rule. The other conferences would probably prefer to have this as an option if it works for the SEC.

2. If we have four teams that go 6-2 in conference, we probably aren't getting anyone in the playoff. The tie breaker rules for your highly improbable scenario involve looking at the standings and finding some difference--someone will have beaten (or lost to) someone with a better record. If you set the schedule up right, so that there is not a division-like separation in the schedule (opponents overlap, where A plays B, B plays C, C plays D, D plays A...), then: (1) a four way tie become highly unlikely; (2) for any tie that you do have where teams did not play head to head, there will be some variance in the strength of wins that will separate the two teams.

3. So, you are in favor of the SEC being limited to 1 team in the playoff? This year may end up being a great example of why a playoff limited to champions is a bad idea. The Pac-12 champ won't deserve to be in under any scenario, and suppose that Clemson fails to show up for the ACC championship game like they almost did for the UNC game--then, you are left with the SEC champ, the Big 10 champ, and maybe the Big 12 champ as obvious teams, but you're stuck with one dud if you are limited to champions.

#2...no matter how you set the schedule can you predict who wins. But you didn't answer the question on who should be ranked higher...teams with 2 common opponents or 1 common opponent if they have the same record.

#3...I'ld be fine with that if the committee designed the po's fairly instead of 4 slots for 5 groups. & yes, I believe you SHOULD be AQ if you won your conference.