There’s a saying that started six years ago on what was then called Twitter and has been floating around in my head, and perhaps that of some college football executives, lately:

Well, if this isn’t the consequences of my own actions.

A few years ago, actually shortly after the phrase entered the dictionary, I wrote: “A suggestion to the SEC: Preserve traditions, eliminate divisions.” This wasn’t my first argument, and other writers have expressed it as well.

Strangely enough they did this. Most other conferences followed suit. Everyone came to the same conclusion: Division structure had led to annual matchups that had become stale and unexciting, especially as conferences grew larger. There was also refactoring, and ending the divisions was easier than rearranging them and would create better games, which it did.

The only problem is, we now have potential chaos in deciding who plays in the conference championship games.

GO DEEPER

Recommendation to SEC: Preserve traditions; trench sections

In larger conferences where most of the top teams don’t play each other, there will be draws and complex tiebreaker scenarios. The Big Ten and ACC currently have three undefeated teams that do not play each other. There are five teams in the SEC with one or no conference losses, and there’s a real chance that each team will have to go to a fourth tiebreaker, the combined record of their conference opponents. There is a scenario where Georgia could be the No. 1 team in the country but not win the SEC championship. And other conferences have strange possibilities.

Ah, so getting rid of divisions was a bad idea! If you had divisions, everyone in the division would play each other and you would pair up the winners of each division and voila, it’s a neat system, right? Do we now regret the consequences of our own actions?

No. Not at all.

We need to remember why we survived divisions in the first place. Older schedules where teams play the same six or seven teams a year and only two or three teams from the other division. In the SEC’s old format with a permanent interdivisional rival, some matchups occurred only twice every 12 years. Georgia He still hasn’t played at Texas A&M but can count on annual games against the same SEC East opponents. South Carolina, Kentucky And vanderbilt.

Something had to change, and it would happen without changing. Oklahoma And Texas attending the conference. But the move was very exciting and the result was a season full of great matches.

Alabama-Georgia? This was an inter-league game in the old format and was not originally scheduled for this season.

GO DEEPER

Who is responsible for college football’s upcoming conference tiebreaker nightmare?

Georgia-Texas? A crossover division game that might not have happened. Vanderbilt upset with Alabama Arkansas to win Tennessee The event caused a storm on the field, nearly upsetting South Carolina in Alabama. LSU‘s comeback win at South Carolina…all interdivisional games that might not have happened before. In the Big Ten, oregonvictory Ohio State, USCWho knows if they’ll be included in an episode structure on this year’s schedule?

The end of the divisions made the regular season more compelling for this and future years. Every team will play each other at least twice every four years in the SEC format, and we’ll see Texas A&M head to South Carolina and Georgia head to the next few weeks. ole miss and LSU is headed to Florida.

Yes, figuring out who gets to play in the conference championship game can be a headache. It may result in an unsatisfactory match. But considering the variety of games we get, it’s a worthwhile trade-off.

The premise should be: Give us great games in the regular season, then work on that. Don’t fix a smaller problem by eliminating something more important.

Divisions weren’t always perfect at determining champions either. Steve Spurrier was upset that his South Carolina team defeated Georgia in 2012, but South Carolina lost the other two games and Georgia never lost again. Sometimes the division winner depended on who drew the interdivisional games better that year.

And if someone is left out of the conference championship due to an unspecified tiebreaker, the system leaves room to alleviate that: an expanded College Football Playoff that leaves room for at least three non-championship game participants and possibly more.

Is the problem with playing conference championship games in the first place? Maybe. That’s a decision each conference will have to make on its own, but you’ll have to pick a champion somehow, especially if the Playoff continues to award automatic bids to champions.

Does the SEC need to go to nine games? Almost certainly, but even then that still means teams won’t be playing the other six teams. Unless someone wants to go for a 15-game schedule, it’s not going to be a perfect tournament.

A better solution would be not to hold a mega conference here. Smaller conferences where everyone plays each other. What a concept. But it’s too late for that.

An unorthodox idea: Rotating divisions so you get a structure for the championship game purpose but maintain program diversity. Is it worth considering? Yes, if managers are willing to make it work logistically. Or just put up with the new system because overall it’s not that bad.

College football is flawed. Always was and probably always will be. But this year we are seeing something amazing; Interesting matches and closer games created by the variety of postponed scheduling in the world of leagues. If that means some trouble for the conference championship games, so be it. We must still accept the consequences of our actions.

(Photo of Georgia quarterback Carson Beck In Texas: Tim Warner/Getty Images)