Good article. Go read the whole thing. Excerpt below is from the very end.

It's an interesting idea but math is an obstacle. Three of the five P5 conferences have 14 teams and, unless the rules have changed since I was in school, 14 is not divisible by 3, or 4, or 5.

The Pac-12 could have 3 obvious pods of 4 teams each, but the idea is a non-starter for every other P5 conference, unless they someday have 12, 15, or 16 football teams.

The author is still right about the existing divisions, though.

College Football’s Power-Conference Divisions Are Broken

Quote:There is one particularly good solution to the sport’s divisional problems: pods. SB Nation’s Bill Connelly laid out how and why they would work earlier this year. The idea is that a school would be placed in a four-team pod while playing a rotating schedule against the other teams in the conference. This approach could allow longstanding rivalries to remain strong (Ohio State and Michigan, for example, could always be put in the same pod) while facilitating a more frequent rotation of matchups among member schools. It’d allow for flexibility in the event of further financially driven realignment, and prevent the creation of A and B divisions within power conferences. The two highest-ranked teams from each conference could face off in the title game.

I don’t see any good reason conferences shouldn’t adopt this system besides the fact it has never been done before. Sure, if any one league adopted a pod format, it would risk running into the same problem that the Big 12 does now, by adding another hurdle for its playoff contenders. But if every league replaced its divisions with pods, then every league would put itself in the best possible position to put on a competitive championship game rather than a totally predictable bloodbath.

College football is nonsensical enough without the existence of something called the ACC Coastal. But at least many other nonsense parts of this sport are beautiful. Divisions aren’t effective or lovable enough to be kept around.

Lots of fail in the article.

He forgets that the SEC dominated the SEC West in the 90s. It was only with the decline of Tennessee and Florida that the West became dominant.

The Big 12 North dominated the early years of the Big 12. The North won 2/3 of the games the first two years.

Balance of power changes.

There was a conference that tried pods-the WAC. And it so confused the fans that they dumped it after 3 years and it contributed to a split of the membership.

Also, pods break up a lot of rivalries in favor of less played games. Rivalries don't fit neatly into pods in the SEC. Rivals A and B of team C are not necessarily rivals of each other. For example Auburn is big rivals with Alabama and Georgia, but Alabama and Georgia rarely play each other. Even with 14 teams, the Big 10 still gets everyone 8 out of 18 games. That's plenty (IU/PU who have a fixed rivalry are the exception-they are 6 out of 18). If the SEC got to 9 conference games, they would meet everyone frequently enough. The ACC divisions are just a mess because they tried to balance the power. They simply need to re-configure.

(10-31-2017 04:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  Balance of power changes.

Sometimes it does, but the point about divisions remains. If, ten years from now, Ohio St., Penn St., Michigan, and Michigan St. have all cratered and the best football teams in the Big Ten are all in the west, their divisions will still be grossly imbalanced. The fact that the formerly stronger division became the weaker one doesn't change the fact that divisional imbalance exists.

Included in the pod idea is playing the league standings as a single table, without divisions. The pods are for scheduling purposes only and wouldn't be "displayed" in the standings table. For example, if the Pac-12 had 3 pods for football, it wouldn't matter at all if casual fans don't know who is in which pod and the standings would just show the teams listed from 1st through 12th place. The only significance of the pods would be that each team would annually play the other 3 teams in its own pod plus 3 of the 4 teams in each of the other two pods.

What the author is talking about aren't actually pods, but rather just a set number of protected matchups each year, with the rest of the conference opponents on a rotating schedule. There aren't necessarily discrete subdivisions though. The article links to this, which also incorrectly refers to pods but explains the idea in detail: https://www.sbnation.com/a/college-footb...-divisions

PS: I made a thread on the topic not long ago: http://csnbbs.com/thread-824495.html

Depends on the goal. If you want to save money on travel, pods are the way to go. If you want to create a balance of power and the best match ups I suggest a seeding system. The system would be on 2 year cycles to allow a home and home before reseeding. You play 6 games in your division and 2 at-large games.

I don"t understand why conferences have permanent divisions. It seems like most teams want 2 to 3 permanent opponents and are willing to rotate the rest of the teams.

You can set up a system where the divisions rotate or just are random every year. You can call it a pod system,, but all it really is rotating divisions.

For example the Big Ten could setup an odd/even rotating system. In odd years, they have east-west divisions. In even years, they have north-south division

East
Rut, MD, PSU, OSU, Mich, MSU, Indy

West
Neb, Iowa, Minn, Wisc, NW, ILL, Pur

North
Neb, Iowa, Minn, Wisc, NW, Indy, MSU

South
Rut, MD, PSU, OSU, Mich, ILL, Pur

Then just set it up so that MSU always plays Mich, Indy always plays Pur and ILL, Pur always plays Indy and ILL, ILL always plays NW, Pur and Indy

(11-01-2017 07:47 AM)goofus Wrote:  For example the Big Ten could setup an odd/even rotating system. In odd years, they have east-west divisions. In even years, they have north-south division

East
Rut, MD, PSU, OSU, Mich, MSU, Indy

West
Neb, Iowa, Minn, Wisc, NW, ILL, Pur

North
Neb, Iowa, Minn, Wisc, NW, Indy, MSU

South
Rut, MD, PSU, OSU, Mich, ILL, Pur

Then just set it up so that MSU always plays Mich, Indy always plays Pur and ILL, Pur always plays Indy and ILL, ILL always plays NW, Pur and Indy

I like the thinking here, but Indiana and Illinois don't play annually as is. Also, the Illinois-Purdue connection isn't especially strong.

(11-01-2017 07:35 AM)goofus Wrote:  I don"t understand why conferences have permanent divisions. It seems like most teams want 2 to 3 permanent opponents and are willing to rotate the rest of the teams.

You can set up a system where the divisions rotate or just are random every year. You can call it a pod system,, but all it really is rotating divisions.

The problem is that the current rules only allow division winners (after round robin divisional games) to play for the conference championship. The scheduling pod system would allow two teams from the same pod (or same rotating division) to play for the conference championship, if they are the two best teams in the conference.

For instance, Ohio St. and Penn St. could still play for the B1G championship in December, despite the fact that they are in the same scheduling pod.

The drawback is that the "best" teams in the conference could be a creation of scheduling. For instance, Wisconsin might not play Ohio St., Penn St., or Michigan St. and thus obtain a nice and shiny 9-0 conference record - despite the fact that insiders and outsiders would rank Wisconsin behind the other conference teams that have one or more losses because of more difficult schedules. I note that this exact same scenario can exist in the current divisional structure, as it does for Wisconsin this year.

Personally, I like the structure where there are four "power" conferences with 15 or 18 teams each. You divide the conferences into 3 smaller divisions. Then, there is a small 4-team conference tournament to decide each conference champion - 3 divisions winners and one at large wild card. Then, the four conference champions spill directly into the 4-team CFP using the Rose and Sugar Bowls as the semi-final bowl games, with the PAC and B1G champs playing in the Rose Bowl and the SEC and ACC/B12 champs playing in the Sugar Bowl. It's similar to the NFC-AFC setup in the NFL.

For instance, let's say the B1G adds UConn and then splits into three 5-team divisions:

East: UConn, Rutgers, Maryland, Penn St., Ohio St.
Central: Michigan, Michigan St., Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern
West: Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska

Each team plays 4 round robin divisional games and 5 or 6 cross-division games. You would likely protect the Ohio St.-Michigan game and perhaps Northwestern-Illinois. Otherwise, you play most other teams in the conference every other year.

Based on an extrapolation of the current CFP standings, the B1G conference championship tournament would likely include #6 Ohio St. (9-0) as the East division winner, #9 Wisconsin (9-0) as the West division winner, #24 Michigan St. (6-3) as the Central division winner, and #8 Penn St. (8-1)as the at large wild card. The B1G tournament might look like this:

Michigan St.(Central) at Ohio St.(East)
Penn St.(wild card) at Wisconsin (West)

Winners play in the B1G championship game in Indianapolis. B1G champion takes on the PAC champion in the Rose Bowl, as a CFP semi-final game.

(11-01-2017 12:36 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 07:35 AM)goofus Wrote:  I don"t understand why conferences have permanent divisions. It seems like most teams want 2 to 3 permanent opponents and are willing to rotate the rest of the teams.

You can set up a system where the divisions rotate or just are random every year. You can call it a pod system,, but all it really is rotating divisions.

The problem is that the current rules only allow division winners (after round robin divisional games) to play for the conference championship. The scheduling pod system would allow two teams from the same pod (or same rotating division) to play for the conference championship, if they are the two best teams in the conference.

For instance, Ohio St. and Penn St. could still play for the B1G championship in December, despite the fact that they are in the same scheduling pod.

The drawback is that the "best" teams in the conference could be a creation of scheduling. For instance, Wisconsin might not play Ohio St., Penn St., or Michigan St. and thus obtain a nice and shiny 9-0 conference record - despite the fact that insiders and outsiders would rank Wisconsin behind the other conference teams that have one or more losses because of more difficult schedules. I note that this exact same scenario can exist in the current divisional structure, as it does for Wisconsin this year.

The rules have changed though. The Big 12 doesn't need divisions to play their CCG.

(11-01-2017 12:36 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 07:35 AM)goofus Wrote:  I don"t understand why conferences have permanent divisions. It seems like most teams want 2 to 3 permanent opponents and are willing to rotate the rest of the teams.

You can set up a system where the divisions rotate or just are random every year. You can call it a pod system,, but all it really is rotating divisions.

The problem is that the current rules only allow division winners (after round robin divisional games) to play for the conference championship. The scheduling pod system would allow two teams from the same pod (or same rotating division) to play for the conference championship, if they are the two best teams in the conference.

For instance, Ohio St. and Penn St. could still play for the B1G championship in December, despite the fact that they are in the same scheduling pod.

The drawback is that the "best" teams in the conference could be a creation of scheduling. For instance, Wisconsin might not play Ohio St., Penn St., or Michigan St. and thus obtain a nice and shiny 9-0 conference record - despite the fact that insiders and outsiders would rank Wisconsin behind the other conference teams that have one or more losses because of more difficult schedules. I note that this exact same scenario can exist in the current divisional structure, as it does for Wisconsin this year.

I disagree with the need to have the 2 best teams in the conference championship game, especially if those teams already played each other. The CCG should take best team from each pre-defined division of teams where everybody in the same division play each other.

There is no need for OSU and PSU to play again. PSU had its chance and lost. If Wisc ends up 9-0, they absolutely deserve a place in the CCG against a 9-0 OSU. The only difference is that Wisc gets it shot at beating OSU in the last game of the season, where everybody in the east, including PSU, got its shot at OSU before the CCG.

This is the same reason I prefer to see all conference champions in the playoffs. Conference Runner-ups had their chance and lost. Its not about selecting the 4 best teams, but selecting the 4 teams that most deserve a chance to play for the national championship.

(11-01-2017 02:02 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 12:36 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 07:35 AM)goofus Wrote:  I don"t understand why conferences have permanent divisions. It seems like most teams want 2 to 3 permanent opponents and are willing to rotate the rest of the teams.

You can set up a system where the divisions rotate or just are random every year. You can call it a pod system,, but all it really is rotating divisions.

The problem is that the current rules only allow division winners (after round robin divisional games) to play for the conference championship. The scheduling pod system would allow two teams from the same pod (or same rotating division) to play for the conference championship, if they are the two best teams in the conference.

For instance, Ohio St. and Penn St. could still play for the B1G championship in December, despite the fact that they are in the same scheduling pod.

The drawback is that the "best" teams in the conference could be a creation of scheduling. For instance, Wisconsin might not play Ohio St., Penn St., or Michigan St. and thus obtain a nice and shiny 9-0 conference record - despite the fact that insiders and outsiders would rank Wisconsin behind the other conference teams that have one or more losses because of more difficult schedules. I note that this exact same scenario can exist in the current divisional structure, as it does for Wisconsin this year.

The rules have changed though. The Big 12 doesn't need divisions to play their CCG.

Not as much as you think. The new CCG rules require the B12 to play a complete conference round robin schedule if there are no divisions. The Big 12 was already doing this, so no change needed - other than to add the CCG.

PLUS, the CCG must pair the top-2 teams (by conference record). In other words, the B12 couldn't cherry pick to get the best matchup from a CFP perspective. For instance, let's say Iowa St. and TCU win out and both finish 8-1 in the Big 12; Oklahoma is 7-2. B12 championship game MUST be Iowa St.-TCU, even though Oklahoma (10-2 overall) would likely finish ranked higher than Iowa St. because of Oklahoma's better OOC win (over Ohio St.) and Iowa St.'s OOC loss (to Iowa).

If there are divisions, the CCG must be between division winners that play a complete divisional round robin schedule.

(11-01-2017 03:12 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 12:36 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 07:35 AM)goofus Wrote:  I don"t understand why conferences have permanent divisions. It seems like most teams want 2 to 3 permanent opponents and are willing to rotate the rest of the teams.

You can set up a system where the divisions rotate or just are random every year. You can call it a pod system,, but all it really is rotating divisions.

The problem is that the current rules only allow division winners (after round robin divisional games) to play for the conference championship. The scheduling pod system would allow two teams from the same pod (or same rotating division) to play for the conference championship, if they are the two best teams in the conference.

For instance, Ohio St. and Penn St. could still play for the B1G championship in December, despite the fact that they are in the same scheduling pod.

The drawback is that the "best" teams in the conference could be a creation of scheduling. For instance, Wisconsin might not play Ohio St., Penn St., or Michigan St. and thus obtain a nice and shiny 9-0 conference record - despite the fact that insiders and outsiders would rank Wisconsin behind the other conference teams that have one or more losses because of more difficult schedules. I note that this exact same scenario can exist in the current divisional structure, as it does for Wisconsin this year.

I disagree with the need to have the 2 best teams in the conference championship game, especially if those teams already played each other. The CCG should take best team from each pre-defined division of teams where everybody in the same division play each other.

There is no need for OSU and PSU to play again. PSU had its chance and lost. If Wisc ends up 9-0, they absolutely deserve a place in the CCG against a 9-0 OSU. The only difference is that Wisc gets it shot at beating OSU in the last game of the season, where everybody in the east, including PSU, got its shot at OSU before the CCG.

This is the same reason I prefer to see all conference champions in the playoffs. Conference Runner-ups had their chance and lost. Its not about selecting the 4 best teams, but selecting the 4 teams that most deserve a chance to play for the national championship.

Wisconsin doesn't play Ohio St., Penn St., or Michigan St. What if Wisconsin finishes 6-3 in the B12 with cross-division losses to Michigan (6-2) and Indiana (3-5) and a loss to Minnesota (4-4), but still wins a weak West division because of tie-breakers?

Penn St. annihilated Indiana and Michigan and will have beaten Wisconsin's primary West competition (Iowa, Northwestern, and Nebraska). The divisional lineup and favorable schedule would be the sole reasons for Wisconsin's bid to the CCG, despite the fact that Wisconsin isn't any good.

What if Wisconsin had played a more difficult OOC slate and had a couple of OOC losses? Wisconsin's best OOC win is either Florida Atlantic (5-3) or Utah St. (4-5). It's best conference win is Northwestern (5-3), with a lot of mediocrity in the schedule.

I didn't mean for this post to become a rant against Wisconsin. In fact, I do think they are pretty good. I did intend to point out the flaws in a divisional lineup in a larger conference. At some point, one of the B1G CCG participants could have 5 losses or more going into the game.

(11-01-2017 03:12 PM)goofus Wrote:  This is the same reason I prefer to see all conference champions in the playoffs. Conference Runner-ups had their chance and lost. Its not about selecting the 4 best teams, but selecting the 4 teams that most deserve a chance to play for the national championship.

This is why I love the 8-team CFP with autobids for conference champions. In that mix you are pretty certain to include both the 4 BEST and the 4 MOST DESERVING. And the on-field results will lead to a legitimate national champion.

If the NCAA would permit it, and I think that the ACC, Big Ten, and SEC could collectively sponsor and push it through I'd love to see conferences permitted to host conference semi-finals and championships.

I'd like to see those 3 conferences I mentioned all go to 15 and have 3 pods of 5 with the 3 pod winners and a wildcard participating in the conference playoff.

Conferences win because they get to control the revenue of their new semifinals. Networks win because the build up and intrigue leading up to the playoff.

The Big Ten gets a Big 12 school
The SEC gets a Big 12 school
The ACC gets UConn, WVU, or somehow works ND into the plan
The Pac 12 grabs either 3 or 6 Big 12 schools to gain a Central Time Zone presence

So what does the Big 12 do if they have 3 or more teams tied with a league best 8-1 or 7-2 conference record?

If Iowa St has wins over Oklahoma, TCU, and Oklahoma St it's going to be awfully hard t keep them out of a title game in favor of teams they beat.

(10-31-2017 05:55 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  What the author is talking about aren't actually pods, but rather just a set number of protected matchups each year, with the rest of the conference opponents on a rotating schedule. There aren't necessarily discrete subdivisions though. The article links to this, which also incorrectly refers to pods but explains the idea in detail: https://www.sbnation.com/a/college-footb...-divisions

PS: I made a thread on the topic not long ago: http://csnbbs.com/thread-824495.html

I don't think pods are the way to go, but believe it or not, I'm not to keen on divisions either.

Some of his matchups I agree with, but some I don't. No way, no how, do Vandy & Ole Miss don't protect their game. And I don't see Auburn protecting MSU either. But I agree with the guy's premise.

(11-02-2017 09:27 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  So what does the Big 12 do if they have 3 or more teams tied with a league best 8-1 or 7-2 conference record?

If Iowa St has wins over Oklahoma, TCU, and Oklahoma St it's going to be awfully hard t keep them out of a title game in favor of teams they beat.

If Iowa St. beats Oklahoma St., the Cyclones are a near lock in the CCG, as long as they beat Baylor and Kansas St. in their final two games.

A crazy scenario would be where Iowa St. beats Oklahoma St. and WVU beats Oklahoma. Then, you'd have four teams with the 7-2 record.

I think that *could* result in the Big 12 CCG of Iowa St. v. WVU.

Iowa St. and WVU would each be 2-1 against the contenders and WVU with the win over Iowa St. Oklahoma and TCU would only be 1-2 against the contenders.

Or, would the B12 go to CFP rankings to pick the CCG participants? (so the Big 12 could get its Oklahoma v. TCU CCG matchup)

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...ID=1546006

If more than 2 teams are tied for a place or both places in the Big 12 CCG, the first tiebreaker is each team's W-L record in games amongst all the tied teams. Next tiebreaker is each team's record against the highest-placed team in the standings after the tied teams, and so on all the way down the standings until the tie is broken. CFP standings are not used at all.

So after W-L record vs. the other 7-2 teams, the next tiebreaker, if 3 or more teams are still tied, would be each tied team's record vs. all 6-3 teams, and you'd have to know the outcome of every remaining conference game to know who will be 6-3 at the end (and then 5-4, 4-5, etc., if the 3 teams are still tied).