(05-27-2011 11:16 AM)SpaceRaider Wrote:  Not really sure Georgia Tech can be claimed as a 'money game' as it's part of a deal that brings them to Floyd Stadium this fall as MT's home opener.

The thing I don't like is the 9 game conference schedule likely makes it more difficult to do the kind of deals that bring a Georgia Tech to Floyd Stadium. I have no problem with an 8 game conference schedule. Sometimes it seems like this conference when confronted with options chooses badly.

I don't believe there is a "good" or a "bad" choice in choosing an eight or nine game slate.

Nine can be good. With a guarantee of five home games every other year, schools have greater ability to go with a home/home deal slotting the home game in a four conference home game season. A 2 for 1 works well by doing the road component in five game home seasons. By slotting in an FCS you can get more years with six home games. The Sun Belt currently has a suggestion (I call it that because there are no teeth that I know of) that schools play 11 home games over each two year period. With the league providing 9 home games over that span rather than 8, that is easier to achieve.

Eight obviously provides flexibility but can be hard to get a six game home slate. Eight avoids complaints about drawing five road games but also means top contenders may not play each other.

I would have been content with either option because there are plusses and minuses either way, but the rub is that 8 has to preserve certain games (FIU-FAU, USA-Troy, MT-WKU, UL-ULM and by default ASU-UNT). It doesn't lend itself to protecting MT-Troy or that standings buster ULM-Troy. It doesn't protect ASU-UL which last year became ASU's second most played game and is UL's second longest active series and becomes 6th most played this year.

My suggestion for an eight game slate was that the league be divided into two pools with one preserved cross-over.
You play your pool every year and all but one of the other pool every year with one designated cross-over, doesn't have to be this exact mix but that would be the basic concept.

The best thing about it is that it guarantees 5 home games every other year. What I see happening is schools trying to schedule a couple of "big school" or "money" games the years they have the 5 home conference games, perhaps a 2-1 deal, and bringing in another mid-major or perhaps a FCS team to get to the 6 home games. On the years you have 4 home conference games, one of the money teams you schedule has their return trip to your school, and toss in another mid-major/FCS for your 6th home game. Of course greater than 6 home games can happen too, but I'm just going off the Troy model of scheduling.

(05-27-2011 11:42 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  My suggestion for an eight game slate was that the league be divided into two pools with one preserved cross-over.

Code:

POOL A    POOL B
FAU       FIU
USA       Troy
WKU       MT
UL        ULM
ASU       UNT

Why'd you put all the good teams in pool B?

Getting to six home games hasn't been much of an issue at MT, this will be our third consecutive season with 6 home games. I wonder if we might start seeing occasional 7 game home slates at MT.

Wait, wait...

You can have more then 5 home games? I cant even REMEMBER the last time FAU had 6 home games, if ever.

(05-27-2011 12:26 PM)OwlFamily Wrote:  Wait, wait...

You can have more then 5 home games? I cant even REMEMBER the last time FAU had 6 home games, if ever.

Never at the FBS level, but you did play 7 games at home in 2003 counting the FCS playoff game you hosted. Not only was their 7 FAU games played at Lockhart that year, FAU also played at FIU, at UCF and at Bethune Cookman.

(05-27-2011 11:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If we stay at 10 and we play 9 I think we will average three schools being bowl eligible on just the conference schedule. We will have the occasional 2 and occasional 4 but overall we will have a solid three eligible every year without any non-conference wins.

I would hope for three every year. The third bowl team would have to have at least on OC win.

(05-27-2011 10:34 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Thinking out loud about the nine game schedule some more.

With the nine game schedule coming which would you rather see for tie-breaking?

Current
Two-team
1. Head-to-head
Multi-team
1. Best combined record head-to-head among tied teams.
2. Go down standings comparing record against next highest in the standings until tie is broken or one team is knocked out of the tie, if teams remain tied after eliminating one, restart tie-breaking with tied teams.

The Arkstfan Alternate Plan
Two team tie.
1. If the road team won in head-to-head, that team wins tie-breaker.
2. If the road team lost, the team winning the most road games wins the tie-breaker.
3. If still tied, the winner of head-to-head wins.

Examples:
1. A and B tie at 8-1. A defeated B at B. A wins tie-breaker.
2. A and B tie at 8-1. A lost to B at B. A went 4-1 on the road B went 3-1 on the road. A wins tie-breaker.
3. A and B tie at 8-1. A lost to B at B. A and B were both 3-1 on the road. B wins tie-breaker.

Multi-team tie.
1. Compare records of tied teams vs. each other. Most road wins against tied teams wins tie-breaker.
2. Compare overall records of tied teams vs. each other. Best record wins.
3. Compare overall conference record. Most road wins takes tie-breaker.
4. Compare record down the standings

Examples
1. A, B, C are tied at 8-1 with each losing one and winning one. A won at B lost at C, B lost at home to A and won at home vs C, C won at home vs A and lost at B. A wins tie-breaker by having only road win.
2. A, B, C are tied at 7-2. A beat B and lost to C but lost one other game. B lost to A and C, while C beat A and B and lost two other games. C wins tiebreaker
3. A, B, C are tied at 7-2 and tie can't be broken in first two scenarios. A went 2-2 on the road, B went 2-2 on the road, C went 3-2 on the road. C wins tiebreaker.

It's ugly, its harder to calculate but it places a premium on road wins and helps negate the disadvantage of drawing a five road game schedule.

You would have to stick with the head to head mathchup.

(05-27-2011 12:55 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(05-27-2011 11:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If we stay at 10 and we play 9 I think we will average three schools being bowl eligible on just the conference schedule. We will have the occasional 2 and occasional 4 but overall we will have a solid three eligible every year without any non-conference wins.

I would hope for three every year. The third bowl team would have to have at least on OC win.

How do you figure?

Team A: 8-1 co-champion
Team B: 8-1 co-champion
Team C: 8-1 co-champion

Team A: 8-1 co-champion
Team B: 8-1 co-champion
Team C: 7-2

Team A: 9-0 champion
Team B: 8-1
Team C: 7-2

Team A: 9-0 champion
Team B: 7-2
Team C: 7-2

And that's just with three teams in question and all three beating the rest of the league. Things could even get crazier with three way ties at 7-2 with each team losing to a different second team, not to mention teams going 6-3, there are plenty of scenarios in which a third and even fourth team could get bowl eligible, without needing an OOC win.

Team A:10-2(9-0)
Team B:10-2(8-1)
Team C: 8-4(7-2)
Team D: 6-6(6-3)

(05-27-2011 11:42 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2011 11:16 AM)SpaceRaider Wrote:  Not really sure Georgia Tech can be claimed as a 'money game' as it's part of a deal that brings them to Floyd Stadium this fall as MT's home opener.

The thing I don't like is the 9 game conference schedule likely makes it more difficult to do the kind of deals that bring a Georgia Tech to Floyd Stadium. I have no problem with an 8 game conference schedule. Sometimes it seems like this conference when confronted with options chooses badly.

I don't believe there is a "good" or a "bad" choice in choosing an eight or nine game slate.

Nine can be good. With a guarantee of five home games every other year, schools have greater ability to go with a home/home deal slotting the home game in a four conference home game season. A 2 for 1 works well by doing the road component in five game home seasons. By slotting in an FCS you can get more years with six home games. The Sun Belt currently has a suggestion (I call it that because there are no teeth that I know of) that schools play 11 home games over each two year period. With the league providing 9 home games over that span rather than 8, that is easier to achieve.

Eight obviously provides flexibility but can be hard to get a six game home slate. Eight avoids complaints about drawing five road games but also means top contenders may not play each other.

I would have been content with either option because there are plusses and minuses either way, but the rub is that 8 has to preserve certain games (FIU-FAU, USA-Troy, MT-WKU, UL-ULM and by default ASU-UNT). It doesn't lend itself to protecting MT-Troy or that standings buster ULM-Troy. It doesn't protect ASU-UL which last year became ASU's second most played game and is UL's second longest active series and becomes 6th most played this year.

My suggestion for an eight game slate was that the league be divided into two pools with one preserved cross-over.

Code:

POOL A    POOL B
FAU       FIU
USA       Troy
WKU       MT
UL        ULM
ASU       UNT

You play your pool every year and all but one of the other pool every year with one designated cross-over, doesn't have to be this exact mix but that would be the basic concept.

I like the concept but you need North South divisions.

North South

ASU FAU
MTSU FIU
UNT USA
WKU ULL
Troy ULM

This way Troy plays MTSU and USA is the designated crossover.

In this setup who would be the designatee crossover for ASU, MTSU, UNT, and WKU?

Example: UNT-ULL, WKU-ASU, MTSU-FIU, ULM-FIU

(05-27-2011 10:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2011 10:22 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  I think the highlighted assumption is false. Many of the SBC teams are likely to keep the $$$ game and lose a more nuetral game; esp. if you are paying for a brand new stadium. Plus the lower revenue schools in the Belt will be more inclined to keep the money game as well to help offset expenses.

Beyond that I think this is a temporary situation. In 2015, if we are still a 10 member football league, we will go to a 9 conf. game schedule. However, we all know that the college football landscape can change at any time and by 2015 we could just as likely be a 12 member league playing in divisions as a 10 member league. We might even lose a couple of programs, replace them with one or two and all this would be moot.

So all of what you say above is true other than the replacing of 'body-bags' with a nuetral opponent for the schools that need the revenue (which may be the majority).

My take using 2010 schedule
-ASU played at Auburn, Indiana, Navy, and hosted Louisville. Likely would have dumped Navy (smallest payout and last added).
-FAU at UAB at Mich St (stadium issue), at USF, at Texas. Either UAB or Texas would have been booted.
-FIU Rutgers, at TAMU, at Maryland, at Pitt. Probably dumped TAMU.
-UL at UGA, OkSt, at Ohio, at Ole Miss. Either Ole Miss dumped or move Ohio to another year.
-ULM at Arkansas, SELA, at Auburn, at LSU. Probably dumped Auburn despite the money unless it was a 5 home conference slate, then might have dumped SELA
-MT Minnesota, APSU, at Memphis, at GT. Either APSU or if can make budget dump GT
- UNT at Clemson, Rice, at Army, Kansas State. Three of those home/home so either push one to another year or dump Clemson.
- Troy BGSU at Ok St, at UAB at South Carolina. Probably dump either USC or Ok St. Might push BGSU to another year.
- WKU at Nebraska, at Kentucky, Indiana, at USF. Probably dump USF.

The overall trend skimming the schedules of the past few years is fewer money games.

I think you will see about half the league playing two money games and either an FCS or a home/home with an FBS and the other half playing one money game and either two FBS home/home or one FCS and one FBS home/home.

ASU has the second lowest budget in the league and the indication I'm getting is that the school is paying close attention to this year's attendance. With an in-state FCS and hour away Memphis coming in, if the numbers work the admin will give the green light to playing one money game. Local TV has already picked up the UCA game and while its not a rich deal it has the potential to make some decent money.

If those games draw, and 9 actually happens (as you correctly note, things may well change in the line-up before we get there) I think you will see ASU playing one money game, one interesting home/home (ideally regional FBS), and one FCS (probably rotating Central Arkansas and Arkansas-Pine Bluff).

Realistically we see the league not keeping all the winnable games but half the schools dropping one and half keeping one.

I like the sound of that. I have been hoping for years that we would go to one money game, 2 home and homes and an FCS but this works just as well. If ASU had managed to win one extra game every other year (assuming we would go .500 against the additional conference opponent) there would have been a couple more bowls and it's a lot easier to sell 3 bowls in 5 years than the hope of getting to another one. This would be a great development.

(05-27-2011 01:04 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(05-27-2011 12:55 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(05-27-2011 11:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If we stay at 10 and we play 9 I think we will average three schools being bowl eligible on just the conference schedule. We will have the occasional 2 and occasional 4 but overall we will have a solid three eligible every year without any non-conference wins.

I would hope for three every year. The third bowl team would have to have at least on OC win.

How do you figure?

Team A: 8-1 co-champion
Team B: 8-1 co-champion
Team C: 8-1 co-champion

Team A: 8-1 co-champion
Team B: 8-1 co-champion
Team C: 7-2

Team A: 9-0 champion
Team B: 8-1
Team C: 7-2

Team A: 9-0 champion
Team B: 7-2
Team C: 7-2

And that's just with three teams in question and all three beating the rest of the league. Things could even get crazier with three way ties at 7-2 with each team losing to a different second team, not to mention teams going 6-3, there are plenty of scenarios in which a third and even fourth team could get bowl eligible, without needing an OOC win.

Team A:10-2(9-0)
Team B:10-2(8-1)
Team C: 8-4(7-2)
Team D: 6-6(6-3)

In the three way tie situation, the assumption is that one of the 8-1 teams also has two OC wins (8-1, SBC and 10-1 overall). The other two 8-1 teams would both need to have at least one OC win for both to also go to the bowl.

(05-27-2011 01:26 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(05-27-2011 01:04 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(05-27-2011 12:55 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(05-27-2011 11:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If we stay at 10 and we play 9 I think we will average three schools being bowl eligible on just the conference schedule. We will have the occasional 2 and occasional 4 but overall we will have a solid three eligible every year without any non-conference wins.

I would hope for three every year. The third bowl team would have to have at least on OC win.

How do you figure?

Team A: 8-1 co-champion
Team B: 8-1 co-champion
Team C: 8-1 co-champion

Team A: 8-1 co-champion
Team B: 8-1 co-champion
Team C: 7-2

Team A: 9-0 champion
Team B: 8-1
Team C: 7-2

Team A: 9-0 champion
Team B: 7-2
Team C: 7-2

And that's just with three teams in question and all three beating the rest of the league. Things could even get crazier with three way ties at 7-2 with each team losing to a different second team, not to mention teams going 6-3, there are plenty of scenarios in which a third and even fourth team could get bowl eligible, without needing an OOC win.

Team A:10-2(9-0)
Team B:10-2(8-1)
Team C: 8-4(7-2)
Team D: 6-6(6-3)

In the three way tie situation, the assumption is that one of the 8-1 teams also has two OC wins (8-1, SBC and 10-1 overall). The other two 8-1 teams would both need to have at least one OC win for both to also go to the bowl.

I'm still not sure how you're coming up with that. Neither of the other two would need any more wins, one of them would automatically be bowling as we have two bowl ties as a conference, the third team would be in line for one of our secondary ties and OOC wins would have no effect on that. If none of our secondary ties had openings, but if there were at-large bids available, having OOC wins certainly wouldn't hurt but considering they'd have 8 wins already, they wouldn't need any OOC wins.

Having a 9 game conference schedule wouldn't be all that bad. That makes it less likely that a team would do what ULM is doing and schedule 3 unwinnable AQ games. 1 FCS, 1 MaC or WAC, and 1 AQ games makes a lot of sense if you think you were good enough to run the table in the SBC. Win 11 games and your top 25.