A-10 Championship Game

[mcveyrl]

[This may be moot since I don't know how they're going to break up the CAA (can somebody help me out with that?).]

Why couldn't the A-10 reserve the last weekend of the regular season for a championship weekend?

North #1 v. South #1

N#2 v. S#2
etc....

If they wanted to avoid rematches, they could swap the bottom games. Each year they could determine which division would have the home games, that way the stadiums would know when they were hosting.

Any thoughts?

[bluehenbillk]

Talked about before, coaches were near-unanimous against it.

[TheValleyRaider]

Would it really be alright to have some sort of game on the schedule like that? As in, could you have that open date on the schedule that says "Opponent TBD" and not know who it is until the week before, especially when the opponent is solely reliant on prior regular season performance?

Sounds a bit like another postseason game to me, which I'm pretty sure the NCAA doesn't approve of if you are to compete in the Playoffs :twocents:

[mcveyrl]

Would it really be alright to have some sort of game on the schedule like that? As in, could you have that open date on the schedule that says "Opponent TBD" and not know who it is until the week before, especially when the opponent is solely reliant on prior regular season performance?

Sounds a bit like another postseason game to me, which I'm pretty sure the NCAA doesn't approve of if you are to compete in the Playoffs :twocents:


That's an excellent question, and I'm not completely sure of the rules. That sounds like a pretty legit reason not to do it, though. I'm sure that if it would generate any revenue the NCAA could make an exception (which, by the way, is a non-existent IF)

In order to get around that, maybe you could use some Pop Warner lingo and call it "The A-10 Jamboree"!! Hold multiple games at 2 or 3 sites!!
xlolx xlolx

[UNHWildCats]

Would it really be alright to have some sort of game on the schedule like that? As in, could you have that open date on the schedule that says "Opponent TBD" and not know who it is until the week before, especially when the opponent is solely reliant on prior regular season performance?

Sounds a bit like another postseason game to me, which I'm pretty sure the NCAA doesn't approve of if you are to compete in the Playoffs :twocents:

Are there diff rules for I-A and I-AA cause the Big 12, ACC and SEC all have Conf Championship games and then participate in I-A's playoff type sortta format called Bowl Games.

[DTSpider]

There's no benefit for the winner in an A10 title game. With a 16 team playoff, I don't see a time when the 2 division winners wouldn't make the playoffs. An extra game just hurts the chances in the playoffs. Plus, there's no TV money which is the real reason why the Big 12, ACC, SEC, MAC, etc. have a conference title game.

[UMass922]

Sounds a bit like another postseason game to me, which I'm pretty sure the NCAA doesn't approve of if you are to compete in the Playoffs :twocents:

Yup. I believe this is why the SWAC Championship Game participants are not eligible for the playoffs.

Of course, the NCAA allows I-A teams to participate in both conference championship games and bowl games.

As for the A-10/CAA two-division structure, I've never understood what purpose this serves. What's the point of having two divisions if you're not going to have a championship game? Does it just look nicer on the page to have two smaller columns as opposed to one long list of teams? I know that it relates to the scheduling--in that each year you play all the teams in your division and only half the teams in the other--but, well, I'm not keen on that idea, either.

[mcveyrl]

Yup. I believe this is why the SWAC Championship Game participants are not eligible for the playoffs.

Of course, the NCAA allows I-A teams to participate in both conference championship games and bowl games.

As for the A-10/CAA two-division structure, I've never understood what purpose this serves. What's the point of having two divisions if you're not going to have a championship game? Does it just look nicer on the page to have two smaller columns as opposed to one long list of teams? I know that it relates to the scheduling--in that each year you play all the teams in your division and only half the teams in the others--but, well, I'm not keen on that idea, either.


I agree. It's hard to have a true league champion when there are two undefeated teams and it's hard not to have that with a conference so large that you can't play everybody. Maybe a relegation system like in European soccer.
There should be an A-10 B-League!!

[mcveyrl]

There's no benefit for the winner in an A10 title game. With a 16 team playoff, I don't see a time when the 2 division winners wouldn't make the playoffs. An extra game just hurts the chances in the playoffs. Plus, there's no TV money which is the real reason why the Big 12, ACC, SEC, MAC, etc. have a conference title game.


No benefit except having a true conference champion. Actually, I think it would create a semi-playoff atmosphere to help prep the team. Besides, if playing a good team hurts your playoff chances, you probably weren't going to win 4-in-a-row anyway.

On the downside, not only is there no TV money, but the rest of the conference is left hanging too.

[GannonFan]

There's no benefit for the winner in an A10 title game. With a 16 team playoff, I don't see a time when the 2 division winners wouldn't make the playoffs. An extra game just hurts the chances in the playoffs. Plus, there's no TV money which is the real reason why the Big 12, ACC, SEC, MAC, etc. have a conference title game.

Actually, I think there have been times in the past when the winner of the A10/Yankee North didn't make the playoffs. UNH didn't make the playoffs in either 1996 (they were 8-3) or 1997 (they were 5-6 overall but won the North) when they won that division, and URI in 1995 (they were 7-4) didn't make the playoffs either despite being on top in the North. I don't believe the South has ever had a winner not make the playoffs.

[TheValleyRaider]

There is a difference with the bowl games though. Those are NCAA-sanctioned events, and are played by NCAA rules with NCAA refs, but are not Official NCAA Postseason events, like the Playoff is. Because the NCAA doesn't record the winners of those games of having won anything except another football game, I don't think they'd need any sort of exemption. Of course, if they do need that exemption, they already have it.

[Umass74]

As for the A-10/CAA two-division structure, I've never understood what purpose this serves. What's the point of having two divisions if you're not going to have a championship game? Does it just look nicer on the page to have two smaller columns as opposed to one long list of teams? I know that it relates to the scheduling--in that each year you play all the teams in your division and only half the teams in the other--but, well, I'm not keen on that idea, either.

Two reasons in my thinking:

1. Travel costs. The New England teams only make three trips south and the Southern teams only make three trips North.

2. A full league slate would eliminate UMass playing tradional rivals like Holy Cross or an Ivy or Patriot team or a I-A money game. The southern schools could not schedule Virginia teams like VMI and the like. All other leagues have that flexability.

If you don't have the play-everbody-in-your-division-and-three-of-the-other division, then the A10 should split into two leagues. That would give two auto-bids every year plus a good chance of two at large bids every year.

[UMass922]

1. Travel costs. The New England teams only make three trips south and the Southern teams only make three trips North.

Perfectly reasonable. I don't see why that necessitates a two-division structure, though.



2. A full league slate would eliminate UMass playing tradional rivals like Holy Cross or an Ivy or Patriot team or a I-A money game. The southern schools could not schedule Virginia teams like VMI and the like. All other leagues have that flexability.

Agreed. A full-league slate should not be played in a twelve-team conference.

All of these points makes sense. But all of these things can be accomplished just as easily without the two-division structure. I still don't see what practical purpose it serves, other than looking nice on paper and reminding fans which are the schools their team plays every year. But hey, maybe that's enough to warrant it. Makes it harder to just quickly look at the standings and see who's in what place in the conference, though.


If you don't have the play-everbody-in-your-division-and-three-of-the-other division, then the A10 should split into two leagues. That would give two auto-bids every year plus a good chance of two at large bids every year.

Agreed.

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

Actually, the worst case scenario is two trips to the other region because at least one of the other division games will be at home.

In regard to costs, waiting until a week before this "jamboree" type game would result in much higher expenses than the usual inter-division games when travel plans can be booked well in advance.

Without additional autobids available, isn't anything but the current setup really not feasible?

[bkrownd]

Talked about before, coaches were near-unanimous against it.

I am unanimously against it too. Conference champions should be decided "round-robin" throughout the entirety of the regular season. The oversized super-conferences are stupid.

[UMass922]

The oversized super-conferences are stupid.

Yup. It's an even worse problem in basketball. The Big East and A-10 in hoops are each so stupidly huge it's a joke. I think a good rule of thumb is that if you can't play everyone once in football and twice in basketball, your conference is too big.

[Umass74]

Without additional autobids available, isn't anything but the current setup really not feasible?


I agree. The schools A.D.'s had a reason for the current setup. The large league really helps with scheduling. Basically, each school knows it has eight dates locked up every year. Since any one in college football will sell out anyone else for more money, that really helps with scheduling. Look what happened to Maine this year getting stuck with an open date.

The three OOC dates allow for regional rivalies i.e. UMass-Holy Cross and one "money" game. Everybody except for Delaware can play a I-A team to make some money if they want to. Delaware's big home attendence allows it to be like a I-A team. The Hens make enough on West Chester to not care if their fans don't like it.

The only thing that would be better (for the current A10 teams)would be a "Blue League" and a "Grey League" with a written agreement that "We'll always play half of your guys and you play half of ours every year". Seeing that would probably lock up three or four playoff slots every year, the rest of I-AA would be bitching big time.

[dbackjon]

Yup. It's an even worse problem in basketball. The Big East and A-10 in hoops are each so stupidly huge it's a joke. I think a good rule of thumb is that if you can't play everyone once in football and twice in basketball, your conference is too big.

:hurray: :hurray:

[ChickenMan]

The 'too big' problem may soon be resolved when Old Dominion joins the CAA (A10). CAA football would then have 13 members and changes would be very likely.

[kardplayer]

Would it really be alright to have some sort of game on the schedule like that? As in, could you have that open date on the schedule that says "Opponent TBD" and not know who it is until the week before, especially when the opponent is solely reliant on prior regular season performance?

Sounds a bit like another postseason game to me, which I'm pretty sure the NCAA doesn't approve of if you are to compete in the Playoffs :twocents:

It's only a post-season game if its after you've already played your 11th game. You could change the schedule to be 2 games against teams in the other division plus this "11th game" instead of the current 3.

The benefit of course would be to ensure that there were no more than 1 undefeated team and an obvious autobid. I think there is benefit in that there would be no need for a tiebreaker.

To potentially simplify matters, instead of having 1 vs. 1 AND 2 vs. 2 AND 3 vs. 3 etc., you could schedule out that last weekend with a full slate of A10 North vs. A10 South games, but then just switch the ones involving the #1 teams.

The downside of all of this is that the Saturday before Thanksgiving is Rivalry Saturday in the A-10 (and much of college football) - Villanova/Delaware and Richmond/W&M come instantly to mind in the A10 - and this would pretty much ruin that without a lot of upside.

Right now all looks rosy, with the A10 getting multiple at larges, but all that it will take for opinions to change is for someone to go OOC and take a beating (0-3), then lose a non-head-to-head tiebreaker with only 1 A-10 loss. They would have a 7-4 record and likely be out of the playoffs entirely, despite sharing the title.

[LeopardFan04]

The 'too big' problem may soon be resolved when Old Dominion joins the CAA (A10). CAA football would then have 13 members and changes would be very likely.

I agree...they'll be a shakeup...and I think a split would get rid of divisions, since there'd be two smaller conferences (one would think)

[Sam Adams]

In '95 URI (6-2, 7-4) won the North and didn't get a bid.

[*****]

America East... America East... America East... America East...

University at Albany
University of Maine
University of New Hampshire
Stony Brook University
who else?

[Sam Adams]

Who has committed to actually joining CAA for football?

[*****]

Who has committed to actually joining CAA for football?All the current A-10.

[JMU_MRD'03-'07]

Who has committed to actually joining CAA for football?

http://www.caasports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=48484&SPID=4660&DB_OEM_ID=8500&ATCLID=323672

[dbackjon]

America East... America East... America East... America East...

University at Albany
University of Maine
University of New Hampshire
Stony Brook University
who else?

Any of the other NEC that want to upgrade - CCSU/RMU/Monmouth

UMass/URI if the CAA wanted to end affiliations...

[Sam Adams]

Well thats why I asked. I've heard some rumors about UMass, URI, Maine, Hofstra, UNH, Albany, StonyBrook, NU - Just rumors though.

[blur2005]

Well thats why I asked. I've heard some rumors about UMass, URI, Maine, Hofstra, UNH, Albany, StonyBrook, NU - Just rumors though.
Yeah, they were created on this site. During the summer this was a main discussion point.