XLance
Hall of Famer
Posts: 14,428
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 794
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
|
RE: An End to Divisions?
(01-19-2014 09:09 AM)JRsec Wrote: (01-19-2014 08:09 AM)XLance Wrote: (01-18-2014 06:13 AM)JRsec Wrote: The advantage of being is old is that you recognize old failed strategies. Prior to 1992 the SEC used this format. We didn't have a round robin and usually only played 7 conference games. Each school had 5 permanent rivals and rotated the rest, although more infrequently that you might think. The problem is perfectly illustrated by those chosen by Alabama to permanent rivals and those chosen by Auburn.
Alabama: Tennessee, Mississippi State, L.S.U., Auburn, Vanderbilt
Auburn: Tennessee, Mississippi State, Alabama, Florida, Georgia
To decide the conference championship it was the team with the best conference record. In the event of a tie it was decided by head competition. In the event of having not played it was decided by record against common opponents and after that by the best overall record.
There were many years that Auburn finished 1 game behind Alabama, and some of those where they finished 1 game behind but had beaten Alabama. Getting to play Vanderbilt and Mississippi State and L.S.U. before they were great (still good but a long way from great) meant that while Auburn played Florida, Georgia, and Alabama to finish out the season every year, Alabama had annual games against 2 lesser opponents prior to playing Auburn. All things being fairly equal on any given year that gave the Tide a leg up not only on Auburn, but on many other conference teams as well. Tennessee's advantage was that they played Alabama, Auburn, ,Georgia, Vanderbilt and Kentucky. So annually of the top teams Tennesse and Alabama claimed two each of the weaker teams to play. Most of the others had 4 conference games against schools at least good enough to beat them. Back in those days Vanderbilt was a guaranteed win. Kentucky and Mississippi State likely wins. Ole Miss, Florida, and L.S.U. a possible loss. Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and Auburn were the ones most likely to make a run and pretty much in that order. And, because Georgia and Alabama had once had a major disagreement they seldom played even in the rotation.
Everybody hated the system because it was inherently biased. So I say we've been there, tried it, it failed miserably due to structural inequities in the scheduling and the 4 pod rotation guarantees that you have to play everyone outside of your tiny division every three years and that every one in your division plays the same core of 7 conference games each year and that's why that system will be superior (not perfect but superior).
Failed?
That system invented the "mystique" that is SEC football.
While I can see the disdain that an Auburn fan might have for the way things were, that old system made football superstars out of Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and LSU.
When you are trying to build a brand, an inherently biased system is the way to go, it also makes much better "must see TV" out of your own market area (it might sell a few more network subscriptions, or a pay-per-view audience).
If you are scheduling for television (which ESPN/FOX want) you have to provide the match-ups that will sell.....it's basic marketing.
Why would Swofford want to introduce this system to the ACC? Because even though it wasn't fair, was hated by some, it worked to build SEC football into what it is today. The ACC needs that to develop into an attractive alternative football league to the SEC (at the expense of the PAC and the B1G), and the SEC needs it to provide marketable match-ups for the SEC network.
The only thing truly needed by both conferences is to group rivals into half divisions of 4 and rotate the half divisions. Since most rivals are geographically close it works out quite well. The most sought after must see brand building television are rivalry games. The second is games among ranked opponents within the conference, and the third are championship round games. Those are the ones that the public clamors to see and those are the ones that people remember.
The other approach is with 4 half divisions with a 9 game conference schedule. You play the three in your division, three from another division, and have one permanent rival in the other 3 divisions. That way 6 of your games are set every year and you rotate through the 9 every three years. Your merely deluding yourself that an outdated system is the way to build the ACC brand. You have a fragile coalition to begin with because there are too many cultures within the ACC to bring cohesion to such a far flung grouping of schools. If there was ever a conference that needed 4 half divisions it's the ACC. Let's say you add another Northern school. Your groupings could easily be:
Boston College, Syracuse, Cincinnati/Connecticut, N.D.
Louisville, Cincinnati/Connecticut, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest
Georgia Tech, F.S.U., Clemson, Miami
Now you have annual games between rivals where there is cultural cohesion. Either of the above formats works just fine to solve your issues and build your brands.
In a conference with only 14 members, this is how it would work.
Each conference member would have three play every year rivals. In an 8 game schedule, then you would play five of the ramaining schools one year and the other 5 the next. This way you could play every other team in the conference at least once every other year (every school as a home game at least once every 4 years).
If there is to be no movement for several years, this is a good formula until the conferences can move to 16. It is much better than only playing a school in another division every decade or so.
(This post was last modified: 01-19-2014 01:10 PM by XLance.)
|
|