(10-10-2018 06:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  3 divisions and a wild card. Hmm? Seems like I put that notion forward a couple of years ago and all I got were the many conventional group think reasons that couldn't happen.

It's a great format. It was then and it is now. You can group your rivals into divisions, drop permanent cross overs and play every within 3 years. Play the 5 in your division and two rotating from each of the other two divisions and you have 9 conference games.

Division champs and the wild card set up a nice semi-final for the conference.

Hail JRsec!

Yes, this has been discussed previously and not simply with three divisions and a wild card, but also in 4 divisional format of 16 teams with each winner of the 4 divisions taking part. As I recall, the discussions against tended to center more around a 4 conference champions only model restricting access (with the newly created P4 conference semi-finals being basically an 8-team CFP) or WHEN those conference semi-finals are played.

If both the semi-final and conference championship games are played at the end of the regular season then one of three things happens:

1) the bye week is eliminated or

2) the season must start a week earlier (when students may not even be on campus yet) than it does presently or

3) the season is extended one week for four games which is the weekend after final exams week at most colleges

Some proposed that the conference semi-final games could be played when the current conference championship games are played now, that the conference championship games could become the New Year's Eve and New Year's Day games, but that would push the CFP championship game back a week since the CFP semi-final games would need to take place when the current CFP championship game is played. The means the entire CFP winds up butting heads with the NFL playoffs more so than they do now.

So I saw the debate mostly centered around further restricting access to the CFP and/or how it could be managed time wise rather than the concept of three divisional set-ups, vs four pods, vs no divisions at all.

Quote:Numerically speaking 18 works well for profitability by emphasizing regional play.

The rub in your plan is that T.C.U. and Texas wouldn't be likely for the ACC. There simply isn't enough regional teams for them to play and Texas loves playing locally.

I think 18 may work great for the SEC, but since as you point out the ACC isn't likely to get Texas (or for that matter Oklahoma) so I see going to 15 for the ACC a sounder move. If it's a championship only model this forces ND to join fully or if they choose to join the Big Ten instead the league adds WVU.

Cheers,
Neil

(10-11-2018 02:24 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-10-2018 06:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  3 divisions and a wild card. Hmm? Seems like I put that notion forward a couple of years ago and all I got were the many conventional group think reasons that couldn't happen.

It's a great format. It was then and it is now. You can group your rivals into divisions, drop permanent cross overs and play every within 3 years. Play the 5 in your division and two rotating from each of the other two divisions and you have 9 conference games.

Division champs and the wild card set up a nice semi-final for the conference.

Hail JRsec!

Yes, this has been discussed previously and not simply with three divisions and a wild card, but also in 4 divisional format of 16 teams with each winner of the 4 divisions taking part. As I recall, the discussions against tended to center more around a 4 conference champions only model restricting access (with the newly created P4 conference semi-finals being basically an 8-team CFP) or WHEN those conference semi-finals are played.

If both the semi-final and conference championship games are played at the end of the regular season then one of three things happens:

1) the bye week is eliminated or

2) the season must start a week earlier (when students may not even be on campus yet) than it does presently or

3) the season is extended one week for four games which is the weekend after final exams week at most colleges

Some proposed that the conference semi-final games could be played when the current conference championship games are played now, that the conference championship games could become the New Year's Eve and New Year's Day games, but that would push the CFP championship game back a week since the CFP semi-final games would need to take place when the current CFP championship game is played. The means the entire CFP winds up butting heads with the NFL playoffs more so than they do now.

So I saw the debate mostly centered around further restricting access to the CFP and/or how it could be managed time wise rather than the concept of three divisional set-ups, vs four pods, vs no divisions at all.

Quote:Numerically speaking 18 works well for profitability by emphasizing regional play.

The rub in your plan is that T.C.U. and Texas wouldn't be likely for the ACC. There simply isn't enough regional teams for them to play and Texas loves playing locally.

I think 18 may work great for the SEC, but since as you point out the ACC isn't likely to get Texas (or for that matter Oklahoma) so I see going to 15 for the ACC a sounder move. If it's a championship only model this forces ND to join fully or if they choose to join the Big Ten instead the league adds WVU.

Cheers,
Neil

The first round of discussions here were centered around the 4 x 16 and everyone tried to fit square pegs into round holes in the PAC to make it work. It was unworkable.

Then I proposed a 3 x 20 (which by the way still works quite nicely), but the issue there was the further restriction of the pool of eligible teams which cut 5 more out leaving a dozen schools who might wish to file a suit.

The 4 x 18 worked pretty darn well with regard to inclusion but again the contiguity issues for the ACC and the PAC limited choices where they were concerned.

So the likely end will result in selective asymmetry. Yes either of the SEC or Big 10 could make 18 work easily, depending upon the target. But if the target is the Big 12 the SEC can make it work very well using a 3 x 6 model for division play.

I think the idea is still to work towards a P4. But it may be one where the PAC consists of 12, the SEC of 18, the Big 10 of 14 (provided they can't land the eligible prizes from the Big 12), and the ACC moves to 15 or even 16.

But note it Neil that kind of ending could cut out 1 more school than does the 3x20, or no more than the 3x20.

But then we have another inequity. Either the SEC or Big 10 comes out way ahead with the loser of those 2 finishing way ahead of the PAC and ACC. Instability would still exist in an exaggerated way.

Of all of the models, the 3 x 20 still provides the most equity.

We'll see. But if this slow motion train wreck has an end it will need to be something like the 3 x 20 to stop it. The inequity of just about any other model will only lead to further consolidation, IMO.

PAC:
Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Arizona, UCLA, California, Oregon, Washington State, Utah
Arizona State, USC, Stanford, Oregon State, Washington, BYU (football only)

Joining the American: Baylor and TCU.

B1G:
Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland, Ohio State, Michigan State
Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue.

(10-11-2018 02:24 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-10-2018 06:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  3 divisions and a wild card. Hmm? Seems like I put that notion forward a couple of years ago and all I got were the many conventional group think reasons that couldn't happen.

It's a great format. It was then and it is now. You can group your rivals into divisions, drop permanent cross overs and play every within 3 years. Play the 5 in your division and two rotating from each of the other two divisions and you have 9 conference games.

Division champs and the wild card set up a nice semi-final for the conference.

Hail JRsec!

Yes, this has been discussed previously and not simply with three divisions and a wild card, but also in 4 divisional format of 16 teams with each winner of the 4 divisions taking part. As I recall, the discussions against tended to center more around a 4 conference champions only model restricting access (with the newly created P4 conference semi-finals being basically an 8-team CFP) or WHEN those conference semi-finals are played.

If both the semi-final and conference championship games are played at the end of the regular season then one of three things happens:

1) the bye week is eliminated or

2) the season must start a week earlier (when students may not even be on campus yet) than it does presently or

3) the season is extended one week for four games which is the weekend after final exams week at most colleges

Some proposed that the conference semi-final games could be played when the current conference championship games are played now, that the conference championship games could become the New Year's Eve and New Year's Day games, but that would push the CFP championship game back a week since the CFP semi-final games would need to take place when the current CFP championship game is played. The means the entire CFP winds up butting heads with the NFL playoffs more so than they do now.

So I saw the debate mostly centered around further restricting access to the CFP and/or how it could be managed time wise rather than the concept of three divisional set-ups, vs four pods, vs no divisions at all.

Quote:Numerically speaking 18 works well for profitability by emphasizing regional play.

The rub in your plan is that T.C.U. and Texas wouldn't be likely for the ACC. There simply isn't enough regional teams for them to play and Texas loves playing locally.

I think 18 may work great for the SEC, but since as you point out the ACC isn't likely to get Texas (or for that matter Oklahoma) so I see going to 15 for the ACC a sounder move. If it's a championship only model this forces ND to join fully or if they choose to join the Big Ten instead the league adds WVU.

Cheers,
Neil

If we ever get to a champs only playoff, allowing four team conference championship tournaments for conferences with 14 or more members would likely force two things: Notre Dame fully to the ACC (champs only) and the PAC taking the best four Big 12 options after the SEC takes Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia. Those would most likely be Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and TCU. With 8 Big 12 teams finding a P4 home, the conference could dissolve with none of the departing members subject to an exit fee.

That would leave the SEC at 18, the PAC at 16, ACC 15 and B1G 14, all of them qualifying for a conference semi. Each conference should be free to decide which of their four teams participate - no one rule fits all. The AAC would likely wind up at 14 as well, absorbing Iowa State and Baylor.

There is a scenario for the ACC which could make Notre Dame's forced entry more palatable and not require adding a 16th member. Two divisions: one consisting of the 8 members that have been together since Florida State joined, and the other has 7 members, including Notre Dame.

The 8 team division plays a division round robin plus one fixed crossover. The 6 other current members play their six division opponents, plus two from the other division (some fixed, some not). Notre Dame doesn't play any crossover games, but instead counts their games against USC and Stanford as league games so all 15 members have 8 conference games. I actually devised a schedule that makes this work (I wasn't sure it was feasible).

In most years, the three historically strongest teams in each division would only play each other if they reach the conference semifinals.

The biggest question for me in all this would be whether the playoff only include P4 champs or allow for the possibility that a G5 champ might be ranked higher than one of the P4s and thereby qualify for the playoff.

The TV market is in flux. No one knows exactly what the revenue stream is likely to look like nor exactly where it is likely to come from.

The safer bet is that the CFP will sign a six year extension for a modest increase simply because of the uncertainty that is present.

(10-11-2018 09:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The TV market is in flux. No one knows exactly what the revenue stream is likely to look like nor exactly where it is likely to come from.

The safer bet is that the CFP will sign a six year extension for a modest increase simply because of the uncertainty that is present.

CFP renewal is still relatively far down the road. My guess is that a lot of current uncertainties about the TV market will be in clearer focus before then.

Whether conferences can renew for more money or if they will be forced to take less, the most likely outcome IMO is that there wouldn't be much change in the relative position of each conference. The SEC and B1G will probably still be the big dogs. If every P5 team were to ultimately get $5 million less revenue per year, nobody would notice the difference. The status quo would be unchanged.

(10-11-2018 10:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 09:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The TV market is in flux. No one knows exactly what the revenue stream is likely to look like nor exactly where it is likely to come from.

The safer bet is that the CFP will sign a six year extension for a modest increase simply because of the uncertainty that is present.

CFP renewal is still relatively far down the road. My guess is that a lot of current uncertainties about the TV market will be in clearer focus before then.

Whether conferences can renew for more money or if they will be forced to take less, the most likely outcome IMO is that there wouldn't be much change in the relative position of each conference. The SEC and B1G will probably still be the big dogs. If every P5 team were to ultimately get $5 million less revenue per year, nobody would notice the difference. The status quo would be unchanged.

We are about 4 years out from when negotiations should be pretty serious.

My guess is that if there isn't an increase that beats inflation that we will start seeing "unnamed sources say" that they are looking at 6 and 8 team models instead of the usual 6 and 8 team talk that clutters the airwaves from columnists and coaches, this would be from real decision makers.

I don't think there is a rights fee bubble or anything like that.

There probably is a window that is going to open in the next few years where carriage fee revenue has declined but the next thing hasn't spun up to speed yet. Someone renewing in that window could get a haircut. But I expect the next model after carriage fee is going to be driven by viewership, probably a subscription model of some form and the money will get even bigger. A conference that renews in the window between models could easily blow up because they've either taken a haircut or the other leagues renew under the fully formed new model and get huge raises.

Evantally women field hockey players will be making million dollars

(10-11-2018 08:13 AM)ken d Wrote:  There is a scenario for the ACC which could make Notre Dame's forced entry more palatable and not require adding a 16th member. Two divisions: one consisting of the 8 members that have been together since Florida State joined, and the other has 7 members, including Notre Dame.

The 8 team division plays a division round robin plus one fixed crossover. The 6 other current members play their six division opponents, plus two from the other division (some fixed, some not). Notre Dame doesn't play any crossover games, but instead counts their games against USC and Stanford as league games so all 15 members have 8 conference games. I actually devised a schedule that makes this work (I wasn't sure it was feasible).

In order for the 6 non-ND teams in the 7-team division to each play 2 crossover games, 4 of the teams in the 8-team division would have to play 2 crossover games.

6x2 = 12 games
4x1 + 4x2 = 12 games

That means 4 teams are playing 9 conference games. Also, not all of the teams in the 8-team division can have a protected crossover among the 6 non-ND teams in the 7-team division unless you double up.

(10-11-2018 03:41 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 08:13 AM)ken d Wrote:  There is a scenario for the ACC which could make Notre Dame's forced entry more palatable and not require adding a 16th member. Two divisions: one consisting of the 8 members that have been together since Florida State joined, and the other has 7 members, including Notre Dame.

The 8 team division plays a division round robin plus one fixed crossover. The 6 other current members play their six division opponents, plus two from the other division (some fixed, some not). Notre Dame doesn't play any crossover games, but instead counts their games against USC and Stanford as league games so all 15 members have 8 conference games. I actually devised a schedule that makes this work (I wasn't sure it was feasible).

In order for the 6 non-ND teams in the 7-team division to each play 2 crossover games, 4 of the teams in the 8-team division would have to play 2 crossover games.

6x2 = 12 games
4x1 + 4x2 = 12 games

That means 4 teams are playing 9 conference games. Also, not all of the teams in the 8-team division can have a protected crossover among the 6 non-ND teams in the 7-team division unless you double up.

Not exactly. It means that those four games are counted as conference games for the teams in the 7 team division, but OOC for those in the 8 team division. The teams in the 8 team division actually involved are the ones without the rivalry game against the SEC. So, yes, some teams play 9 ACC opponents, but only 8 of them are conference games. There could also be other games between ACC teams which aren't conference games for either of them.

(10-11-2018 05:25 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 03:41 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 08:13 AM)ken d Wrote:  There is a scenario for the ACC which could make Notre Dame's forced entry more palatable and not require adding a 16th member. Two divisions: one consisting of the 8 members that have been together since Florida State joined, and the other has 7 members, including Notre Dame.

The 8 team division plays a division round robin plus one fixed crossover. The 6 other current members play their six division opponents, plus two from the other division (some fixed, some not). Notre Dame doesn't play any crossover games, but instead counts their games against USC and Stanford as league games so all 15 members have 8 conference games. I actually devised a schedule that makes this work (I wasn't sure it was feasible).

In order for the 6 non-ND teams in the 7-team division to each play 2 crossover games, 4 of the teams in the 8-team division would have to play 2 crossover games.

6x2 = 12 games
4x1 + 4x2 = 12 games

That means 4 teams are playing 9 conference games. Also, not all of the teams in the 8-team division can have a protected crossover among the 6 non-ND teams in the 7-team division unless you double up.

Not exactly. It means that those four games are counted as conference games for the teams in the 7 team division, but OOC for those in the 8 team division. The teams in the 8 team division actually involved are the ones without the rivalry game against the SEC. So, yes, some teams play 9 ACC opponents, but only 8 of them are conference games. There could also be other games between ACC teams which aren't conference games for either of them.

In the history of sports no rule or procedure change passes muster if the average fan is confused about it. The designated hitter may be one of the few such changes that didn't meet with catastrophe. So while your suggestion works in theory, it would likely be rejected.

I think that it would be much easier to move to a division-less conference schedule.

(10-11-2018 08:13 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 02:24 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-10-2018 06:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  3 divisions and a wild card. Hmm? Seems like I put that notion forward a couple of years ago and all I got were the many conventional group think reasons that couldn't happen.

It's a great format. It was then and it is now. You can group your rivals into divisions, drop permanent cross overs and play every within 3 years. Play the 5 in your division and two rotating from each of the other two divisions and you have 9 conference games.

Division champs and the wild card set up a nice semi-final for the conference.

Hail JRsec!

Yes, this has been discussed previously and not simply with three divisions and a wild card, but also in 4 divisional format of 16 teams with each winner of the 4 divisions taking part. As I recall, the discussions against tended to center more around a 4 conference champions only model restricting access (with the newly created P4 conference semi-finals being basically an 8-team CFP) or WHEN those conference semi-finals are played.

If both the semi-final and conference championship games are played at the end of the regular season then one of three things happens:

1) the bye week is eliminated or

2) the season must start a week earlier (when students may not even be on campus yet) than it does presently or

3) the season is extended one week for four games which is the weekend after final exams week at most colleges

Some proposed that the conference semi-final games could be played when the current conference championship games are played now, that the conference championship games could become the New Year's Eve and New Year's Day games, but that would push the CFP championship game back a week since the CFP semi-final games would need to take place when the current CFP championship game is played. The means the entire CFP winds up butting heads with the NFL playoffs more so than they do now.

So I saw the debate mostly centered around further restricting access to the CFP and/or how it could be managed time wise rather than the concept of three divisional set-ups, vs four pods, vs no divisions at all.

Quote:Numerically speaking 18 works well for profitability by emphasizing regional play.

The rub in your plan is that T.C.U. and Texas wouldn't be likely for the ACC. There simply isn't enough regional teams for them to play and Texas loves playing locally.

I think 18 may work great for the SEC, but since as you point out the ACC isn't likely to get Texas (or for that matter Oklahoma) so I see going to 15 for the ACC a sounder move. If it's a championship only model this forces ND to join fully or if they choose to join the Big Ten instead the league adds WVU.

Cheers,
Neil

If we ever get to a champs only playoff, allowing four team conference championship tournaments for conferences with 14 or more members would likely force two things: Notre Dame fully to the ACC (champs only) and the PAC taking the best four Big 12 options after the SEC takes Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia. Those would most likely be Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and TCU. With 8 Big 12 teams finding a P4 home, the conference could dissolve with none of the departing members subject to an exit fee.

That would leave the SEC at 18, the PAC at 16, ACC 15 and B1G 14, all of them qualifying for a conference semi. Each conference should be free to decide which of their four teams participate - no one rule fits all. The AAC would likely wind up at 14 as well, absorbing Iowa State and Baylor.

There is a scenario for the ACC which could make Notre Dame's forced entry more palatable and not require adding a 16th member. Two divisions: one consisting of the 8 members that have been together since Florida State joined, and the other has 7 members, including Notre Dame.

The 8 team division plays a division round robin plus one fixed crossover. The 6 other current members play their six division opponents, plus two from the other division (some fixed, some not). Notre Dame doesn't play any crossover games, but instead counts their games against USC and Stanford as league games so all 15 members have 8 conference games. I actually devised a schedule that makes this work (I wasn't sure it was feasible).

In most years, the three historically strongest teams in each division would only play each other if they reach the conference semifinals.

The biggest question for me in all this would be whether the playoff only include P4 champs or allow for the possibility that a G5 champ might be ranked higher than one of the P4s and thereby qualify for the playoff.

If you are going to also have conference semi-finals why not divide the ACC into 3 divisions of 5 and have a wildcard in the playoffs:

North: Pitt, BC, Cuse, ND, VT
Coastal: UNC, Duke, UVA, GT, Miami
Atlantic: Clemson, FSU, L'ville, WF, NC St

ND plays 6 conference games and counts it's CA Pac 12 schools in the standings; everyone else plays their 4 Division mates plus 4 more

Preserved cross division rivalries:

UVA-VT
UNC-NC St
Duke-WF
Clemson-GT
Florida St-Miami

Large conferences cannot structure divisions without significant friction because you will end up breaking up games the ticket buyer / donor wants to see. You get the complaints about X having an easier path to the division title than Y.

If you play an odd number of conference games you are assured that half the fan bases (and coaches, absolutely the coaches) are complaining that they have to play 5 league road games while the hated Sand Ants are playing 5 home games.

Look at the SEC and open date complaining.

Fan buy-in requires a belief the system isn't stacked. It requires understanding the why. Look at the NFL and what the hell is a catch on pass plays. More people can explain the infield fly rule than can explain what is and isn't a pass reception.

Cracking the nut of how to create a system that fans will buy into is the challenge for conferences growing.

(10-12-2018 10:22 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you play an odd number of conference games you are assured that half the fan bases (and coaches, absolutely the coaches) are complaining that they have to play 5 league road games while the hated Sand Ants are playing 5 home games.

This is such a silly complaint, since the next year, the situation is reversed.

(10-11-2018 09:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 08:13 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 02:24 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-10-2018 06:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  3 divisions and a wild card. Hmm? Seems like I put that notion forward a couple of years ago and all I got were the many conventional group think reasons that couldn't happen.

It's a great format. It was then and it is now. You can group your rivals into divisions, drop permanent cross overs and play every within 3 years. Play the 5 in your division and two rotating from each of the other two divisions and you have 9 conference games.

Division champs and the wild card set up a nice semi-final for the conference.

Hail JRsec!

Yes, this has been discussed previously and not simply with three divisions and a wild card, but also in 4 divisional format of 16 teams with each winner of the 4 divisions taking part. As I recall, the discussions against tended to center more around a 4 conference champions only model restricting access (with the newly created P4 conference semi-finals being basically an 8-team CFP) or WHEN those conference semi-finals are played.

If both the semi-final and conference championship games are played at the end of the regular season then one of three things happens:

1) the bye week is eliminated or

2) the season must start a week earlier (when students may not even be on campus yet) than it does presently or

3) the season is extended one week for four games which is the weekend after final exams week at most colleges

Some proposed that the conference semi-final games could be played when the current conference championship games are played now, that the conference championship games could become the New Year's Eve and New Year's Day games, but that would push the CFP championship game back a week since the CFP semi-final games would need to take place when the current CFP championship game is played. The means the entire CFP winds up butting heads with the NFL playoffs more so than they do now.

So I saw the debate mostly centered around further restricting access to the CFP and/or how it could be managed time wise rather than the concept of three divisional set-ups, vs four pods, vs no divisions at all.

Quote:Numerically speaking 18 works well for profitability by emphasizing regional play.

The rub in your plan is that T.C.U. and Texas wouldn't be likely for the ACC. There simply isn't enough regional teams for them to play and Texas loves playing locally.

I think 18 may work great for the SEC, but since as you point out the ACC isn't likely to get Texas (or for that matter Oklahoma) so I see going to 15 for the ACC a sounder move. If it's a championship only model this forces ND to join fully or if they choose to join the Big Ten instead the league adds WVU.

Cheers,
Neil

If we ever get to a champs only playoff, allowing four team conference championship tournaments for conferences with 14 or more members would likely force two things: Notre Dame fully to the ACC (champs only) and the PAC taking the best four Big 12 options after the SEC takes Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia. Those would most likely be Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and TCU. With 8 Big 12 teams finding a P4 home, the conference could dissolve with none of the departing members subject to an exit fee.

That would leave the SEC at 18, the PAC at 16, ACC 15 and B1G 14, all of them qualifying for a conference semi. Each conference should be free to decide which of their four teams participate - no one rule fits all. The AAC would likely wind up at 14 as well, absorbing Iowa State and Baylor.

There is a scenario for the ACC which could make Notre Dame's forced entry more palatable and not require adding a 16th member. Two divisions: one consisting of the 8 members that have been together since Florida State joined, and the other has 7 members, including Notre Dame.

The 8 team division plays a division round robin plus one fixed crossover. The 6 other current members play their six division opponents, plus two from the other division (some fixed, some not). Notre Dame doesn't play any crossover games, but instead counts their games against USC and Stanford as league games so all 15 members have 8 conference games. I actually devised a schedule that makes this work (I wasn't sure it was feasible).

In most years, the three historically strongest teams in each division would only play each other if they reach the conference semifinals.

The biggest question for me in all this would be whether the playoff only include P4 champs or allow for the possibility that a G5 champ might be ranked higher than one of the P4s and thereby qualify for the playoff.

If you are going to also have conference semi-finals why not divide the ACC into 3 divisions of 5 and have a wildcard in the playoffs:

North: Pitt, BC, Cuse, ND, VT
Coastal: UNC, Duke, UVA, GT, Miami
Atlantic: Clemson, FSU, L'ville, WF, NC St

ND plays 6 conference games and counts it's CA Pac 12 schools in the standings; everyone else plays their 4 Division mates plus 4 more

Preserved cross division rivalries:

UVA-VT
UNC-NC St
Duke-WF
Clemson-GT
Florida St-Miami

Aside from the fact that:

1. Three divisions aren't currently permitted by the NCAA
2. I very much dislike the very notion of wild cards, and
3. I have never been able to actually able to construct a schedule that fits your parameters
4. I have actually been able to construct a schedule that fits my parameters

I don't think pods accommodate all of the games that the ACC members want to play every year. As arkstfan points out, that's usually a byproduct of the large conferences that have been formed for reasons other than affinity between schools.

The best arrangement I could come up with to accommodate 3 divisions of five was to give every school not one, but three permanent crossover opponents, and one school (I chose Wake Forest) with a fourth permanent crossover. I haven't been able to figure out yet whether the remaining 14 schools could develop a rotation where each school plays every other once every seven years (as opposed to six years under the current model). It's a more complex task than it appears on the surface.

(10-12-2018 11:03 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-12-2018 10:22 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you play an odd number of conference games you are assured that half the fan bases (and coaches, absolutely the coaches) are complaining that they have to play 5 league road games while the hated Sand Ants are playing 5 home games.

This is such a silly complaint, since the next year, the situation is reversed.

Yeah but our QB Joe Bob Billy is a senior the year we play four at home and had a chance to win, next year we will be starting a freshman or a transfer and even with five at home we won't contend.
That's how the complaint usually goes.

(10-12-2018 01:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-12-2018 11:03 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-12-2018 10:22 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you play an odd number of conference games you are assured that half the fan bases (and coaches, absolutely the coaches) are complaining that they have to play 5 league road games while the hated Sand Ants are playing 5 home games.

This is such a silly complaint, since the next year, the situation is reversed.

Yeah but our QB Joe Bob Billy is a senior the year we play four at home and had a chance to win, next year we will be starting a freshman or a transfer and even with five at home we won't contend.
That's how the complaint usually goes.

The complaints may be different every year. The only constant is that there will be complaints every year.

(10-12-2018 11:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 09:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 08:13 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 02:24 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(10-10-2018 06:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  3 divisions and a wild card. Hmm? Seems like I put that notion forward a couple of years ago and all I got were the many conventional group think reasons that couldn't happen.

It's a great format. It was then and it is now. You can group your rivals into divisions, drop permanent cross overs and play every within 3 years. Play the 5 in your division and two rotating from each of the other two divisions and you have 9 conference games.

Division champs and the wild card set up a nice semi-final for the conference.

Hail JRsec!

Yes, this has been discussed previously and not simply with three divisions and a wild card, but also in 4 divisional format of 16 teams with each winner of the 4 divisions taking part. As I recall, the discussions against tended to center more around a 4 conference champions only model restricting access (with the newly created P4 conference semi-finals being basically an 8-team CFP) or WHEN those conference semi-finals are played.

If both the semi-final and conference championship games are played at the end of the regular season then one of three things happens:

1) the bye week is eliminated or

2) the season must start a week earlier (when students may not even be on campus yet) than it does presently or

3) the season is extended one week for four games which is the weekend after final exams week at most colleges

Some proposed that the conference semi-final games could be played when the current conference championship games are played now, that the conference championship games could become the New Year's Eve and New Year's Day games, but that would push the CFP championship game back a week since the CFP semi-final games would need to take place when the current CFP championship game is played. The means the entire CFP winds up butting heads with the NFL playoffs more so than they do now.

So I saw the debate mostly centered around further restricting access to the CFP and/or how it could be managed time wise rather than the concept of three divisional set-ups, vs four pods, vs no divisions at all.

Quote:Numerically speaking 18 works well for profitability by emphasizing regional play.

The rub in your plan is that T.C.U. and Texas wouldn't be likely for the ACC. There simply isn't enough regional teams for them to play and Texas loves playing locally.

I think 18 may work great for the SEC, but since as you point out the ACC isn't likely to get Texas (or for that matter Oklahoma) so I see going to 15 for the ACC a sounder move. If it's a championship only model this forces ND to join fully or if they choose to join the Big Ten instead the league adds WVU.

Cheers,
Neil

If we ever get to a champs only playoff, allowing four team conference championship tournaments for conferences with 14 or more members would likely force two things: Notre Dame fully to the ACC (champs only) and the PAC taking the best four Big 12 options after the SEC takes Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia. Those would most likely be Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and TCU. With 8 Big 12 teams finding a P4 home, the conference could dissolve with none of the departing members subject to an exit fee.

That would leave the SEC at 18, the PAC at 16, ACC 15 and B1G 14, all of them qualifying for a conference semi. Each conference should be free to decide which of their four teams participate - no one rule fits all. The AAC would likely wind up at 14 as well, absorbing Iowa State and Baylor.

There is a scenario for the ACC which could make Notre Dame's forced entry more palatable and not require adding a 16th member. Two divisions: one consisting of the 8 members that have been together since Florida State joined, and the other has 7 members, including Notre Dame.

The 8 team division plays a division round robin plus one fixed crossover. The 6 other current members play their six division opponents, plus two from the other division (some fixed, some not). Notre Dame doesn't play any crossover games, but instead counts their games against USC and Stanford as league games so all 15 members have 8 conference games. I actually devised a schedule that makes this work (I wasn't sure it was feasible).

In most years, the three historically strongest teams in each division would only play each other if they reach the conference semifinals.

The biggest question for me in all this would be whether the playoff only include P4 champs or allow for the possibility that a G5 champ might be ranked higher than one of the P4s and thereby qualify for the playoff.

If you are going to also have conference semi-finals why not divide the ACC into 3 divisions of 5 and have a wildcard in the playoffs:

North: Pitt, BC, Cuse, ND, VT
Coastal: UNC, Duke, UVA, GT, Miami
Atlantic: Clemson, FSU, L'ville, WF, NC St

ND plays 6 conference games and counts it's CA Pac 12 schools in the standings; everyone else plays their 4 Division mates plus 4 more

Preserved cross division rivalries:

UVA-VT
UNC-NC St
Duke-WF
Clemson-GT
Florida St-Miami

Aside from the fact that:

1. Three divisions aren't currently permitted by the NCAA
2. I very much dislike the very notion of wild cards, and
3. I have never been able to actually able to construct a schedule that fits your parameters
4. I have actually been able to construct a schedule that fits my parameters

I don't think pods accommodate all of the games that the ACC members want to play every year. As arkstfan points out, that's usually a byproduct of the large conferences that have been formed for reasons other than affinity between schools.

The best arrangement I could come up with to accommodate 3 divisions of five was to give every school not one, but three permanent crossover opponents, and one school (I chose Wake Forest) with a fourth permanent crossover. I haven't been able to figure out yet whether the remaining 14 schools could develop a rotation where each school plays every other once every seven years (as opposed to six years under the current model). It's a more complex task than it appears on the surface.

I can't figure out how to make it work with one, two or three permanent crossovers. The best arrangement I could come up with that would satisfy the greatest number of members' needs is for every school to have a fixed 8 game league schedule unique to itself, and accommodate the desire for more opponents by making them mutually voluntary OOC games.

Here's what I came up with for each school's OOD schedule (possible OOC games in parentheses). Obviously, they all play a full round robin within each division.

Big East Division:

Notre Dame: USC, Stanford, Miami, Clemson
Pitt: Louisville, Virginia, Florida State, NC State (UNC)
BC: Miami, Louisville, Georgia Tech, Duke (NC State)
Syracuse: Duke, Clemson, Louisville, Georgia Tech (Wake Forest)
Virginia Tech: Virginia, Wake Forest, NC State, UNC (Miami)

Coastal Division:

Miami: Florida State, BC, Notre Dame, Louisville (Virginia Tech)
Georgia Tech: Clemson, Florida State, BC, Syracuse
UNC: NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Virginia Tech (Pitt)
Duke: NC State, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Florida State
Virginia: Virginia Tech, Pitt, Wake Forest, Florida State (Louisville)

Atlantic Division:

Clemson: Georgia Tech, Syracuse, UNC, Notre Dame
Florida State: Georgia Tech, Miami, Pitt, Virginia
Louisville: Pitt, BC, Syracuse, Miami (Virginia)
Wake Forest: UNC, Virginia Tech, Duke, Virginia (Syracuse)
NC State: UNC, Duke, Virginia Tech, Pitt (BC)

Like most compromise solutions, the best outcome you can hope for is that everybody gets most of what they want, nobody is worse off than they were before, and the final result is reasonably fair.

Does this meet those criteria?

(10-12-2018 01:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-12-2018 11:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 09:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 08:13 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-11-2018 02:24 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  Hail JRsec!

Yes, this has been discussed previously and not simply with three divisions and a wild card, but also in 4 divisional format of 16 teams with each winner of the 4 divisions taking part. As I recall, the discussions against tended to center more around a 4 conference champions only model restricting access (with the newly created P4 conference semi-finals being basically an 8-team CFP) or WHEN those conference semi-finals are played.

If both the semi-final and conference championship games are played at the end of the regular season then one of three things happens:

1) the bye week is eliminated or

2) the season must start a week earlier (when students may not even be on campus yet) than it does presently or

3) the season is extended one week for four games which is the weekend after final exams week at most colleges

Some proposed that the conference semi-final games could be played when the current conference championship games are played now, that the conference championship games could become the New Year's Eve and New Year's Day games, but that would push the CFP championship game back a week since the CFP semi-final games would need to take place when the current CFP championship game is played. The means the entire CFP winds up butting heads with the NFL playoffs more so than they do now.

So I saw the debate mostly centered around further restricting access to the CFP and/or how it could be managed time wise rather than the concept of three divisional set-ups, vs four pods, vs no divisions at all.



I think 18 may work great for the SEC, but since as you point out the ACC isn't likely to get Texas (or for that matter Oklahoma) so I see going to 15 for the ACC a sounder move. If it's a championship only model this forces ND to join fully or if they choose to join the Big Ten instead the league adds WVU.

Cheers,
Neil

If we ever get to a champs only playoff, allowing four team conference championship tournaments for conferences with 14 or more members would likely force two things: Notre Dame fully to the ACC (champs only) and the PAC taking the best four Big 12 options after the SEC takes Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia. Those would most likely be Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and TCU. With 8 Big 12 teams finding a P4 home, the conference could dissolve with none of the departing members subject to an exit fee.

That would leave the SEC at 18, the PAC at 16, ACC 15 and B1G 14, all of them qualifying for a conference semi. Each conference should be free to decide which of their four teams participate - no one rule fits all. The AAC would likely wind up at 14 as well, absorbing Iowa State and Baylor.

There is a scenario for the ACC which could make Notre Dame's forced entry more palatable and not require adding a 16th member. Two divisions: one consisting of the 8 members that have been together since Florida State joined, and the other has 7 members, including Notre Dame.

The 8 team division plays a division round robin plus one fixed crossover. The 6 other current members play their six division opponents, plus two from the other division (some fixed, some not). Notre Dame doesn't play any crossover games, but instead counts their games against USC and Stanford as league games so all 15 members have 8 conference games. I actually devised a schedule that makes this work (I wasn't sure it was feasible).

In most years, the three historically strongest teams in each division would only play each other if they reach the conference semifinals.

The biggest question for me in all this would be whether the playoff only include P4 champs or allow for the possibility that a G5 champ might be ranked higher than one of the P4s and thereby qualify for the playoff.

If you are going to also have conference semi-finals why not divide the ACC into 3 divisions of 5 and have a wildcard in the playoffs:

North: Pitt, BC, Cuse, ND, VT
Coastal: UNC, Duke, UVA, GT, Miami
Atlantic: Clemson, FSU, L'ville, WF, NC St

ND plays 6 conference games and counts it's CA Pac 12 schools in the standings; everyone else plays their 4 Division mates plus 4 more

Preserved cross division rivalries:

UVA-VT
UNC-NC St
Duke-WF
Clemson-GT
Florida St-Miami

Aside from the fact that:

1. Three divisions aren't currently permitted by the NCAA
2. I very much dislike the very notion of wild cards, and
3. I have never been able to actually able to construct a schedule that fits your parameters
4. I have actually been able to construct a schedule that fits my parameters

I don't think pods accommodate all of the games that the ACC members want to play every year. As arkstfan points out, that's usually a byproduct of the large conferences that have been formed for reasons other than affinity between schools.

The best arrangement I could come up with to accommodate 3 divisions of five was to give every school not one, but three permanent crossover opponents, and one school (I chose Wake Forest) with a fourth permanent crossover. I haven't been able to figure out yet whether the remaining 14 schools could develop a rotation where each school plays every other once every seven years (as opposed to six years under the current model). It's a more complex task than it appears on the surface.

I can't figure out how to make it work with one, two or three permanent crossovers. The best arrangement I could come up with that would satisfy the greatest number of members' needs is for every school to have a fixed 8 game league schedule unique to itself, and accommodate the desire for more opponents by making them mutually voluntary OOC games.

Here's what I came up with for each school's OOD schedule (possible OOC games in parentheses). Obviously, they all play a full round robin within each division.

Big East Division:

Notre Dame: USC, Stanford, Miami, Clemson
Pitt: Louisville, Virginia, Florida State, NC State (UNC)
BC: Miami, Louisville, Georgia Tech, Duke (NC State)
Syracuse: Duke, Clemson, Louisville, Georgia Tech (Wake Forest)
Virginia Tech: Virginia, Wake Forest, NC State, UNC (Miami)

Coastal Division:

Miami: Florida State, BC, Notre Dame, Louisville (Virginia Tech)
Georgia Tech: Clemson, Florida State, BC, Syracuse
UNC: NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Virginia Tech (Pitt)
Duke: NC State, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Florida State
Virginia: Virginia Tech, Pitt, Wake Forest, Florida State (Louisville)

Atlantic Division:

Clemson: Georgia Tech, Syracuse, UNC, Notre Dame
Florida State: Georgia Tech, Miami, Pitt, Virginia
Louisville: Pitt, BC, Syracuse, Miami (Virginia)
Wake Forest: UNC, Virginia Tech, Duke, Virginia (Syracuse)
NC State: UNC, Duke, Virginia Tech, Pitt (BC)

Like most compromise solutions, the best outcome you can hope for is that everybody gets most of what they want, nobody is worse off than they were before, and the final result is reasonably fair.

Does this meet those criteria?

The solution isn't divisions unless you get the system change to have conference semi-finals exempted from the 12 game limit.

Without that change, the solution is no divisions. Let schools work out half the schedule on their own and the conference and TV fill in the the other half. Top 2 ranked teams play in the title game.