Top 3 most often played games:

TN - Vandy, KY, Alabama
Vandy - TN, Miss, KY
KY - TN, Vandy, GA
Alabama - TN, Miss St., LSU, (4=Vandy, 5=Auburn) *No way Alabama doesn't get Auburn
Ole Miss - Miss St, LSU, Vandy
Auburn - Georgia, Ms. St. (GT), Florida (Auburn) *No way Auburn doesn't get Alabama
Florida - Georgia, Auburn, Kentucky
Georgia - Auburn (GT), Florida, Vanderbilt
Miss St - Ole Miss, LSU, Alabama
South Carolina - 2 - Georgia, 7- Florida, 8-TN (most are in the ACC)
LSU - Miss St, Miss (Tulane), Alabama
Arkansas - Texas A&M, Texas, 6 Miss
Texas A&M - Texas, 6 Arkansas, 8 LSU
Missouri - 5 OK, 11 Texas, 13 Texas A&M
Texas - (Baylor), A&M, OK, 6 Arkansas
OK- 2 texas, 5 missouri, 10 a&m

(05-18-2022 07:19 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I’m sure I’m not the first with this idea, but I like a pod and group setup.
Football - 9 total games.

Play each team on your line (pod) every year.

2 from each other pod by Group. Alternate groups each year

Basketball - 18 games. Home and away. Play the opposite groupings as in football (e.g., if you play Group A in football, you play Group B in hoops).

Pod Group A - Group B
1. USC, FL - GA, TN
2. AL, Vandy - AUB, KY
3. LSU, Miss - Miss St, aTm
4. Tex, Miz - Ark, OU

That way you play 3 major rivals in both football and basketball every year. You play EVERYONE in either football or basketball every year.

You play everyone in each sport at least every other year. States with 2 schools are split across groups so you get to play someone from AL, MS, TN, and TX every season. Both groups have BIG brands attractive to TV.

I suspect that as an outsider I’m overlooking an annual matchup that some fan bases really value. But I do think that this is a good way to get maximum exposure, lots of good games every year, and even if you don’t see a key rival every year in football, you’d at least get them in basketball.

The bold reminds me of how I wish the SEC would determine football champions... How about 2 from each other pod by cross-group instead? That way the number of opponents unpaired teams have in common is doubled, from 4 to 8.

I alternately think of that as "indirect," "anti-divisional," "transitive" or "comparative" scheduling, lol. That scheduling model along with a certain point system (one that will never happen) is, AFAIK, the fairest possible way to crown the football champion of a league that is too large to stage a round-robin, or otherwise doesn't.

Here's an illustration of how useful indirect scheduling can be in fairly determining a champion, although in this first example I'll use 2-team pods, not 4. It won't happen, of course, and I don't suggest it should, but imagine that the SEC @ 16 got rid of the CG and limited everyone to 1 permanent opponent: Each year, split the field into 2 groups of 8, placing each team's permanent opponent in the opposite group. Have all teams play all 8 teams in the opposite group. That's it. The lone team with the most wins is the champion. I don't want to bog this particular bit down with an explanation of tiebreakers except to say that a tiebreak system would be necessary because tied in-group teams should not be considered co-champions. So, for simplicity's sake, imagine that one team finishes with more wins than all others.

That's fair because teams who do not play each other have the same opponents. All teams who play each other have an equal opportunity to win and all teams who do not play each other have an equal opportunity to outdo each other. (Well, it's as equitable as can be without staging all games at neutral sites.) It's simple, too, when there's no tie for 1st.

But if the goal is to make things as fair as possible, then complication would be at the fore with a conference CG or if teams are to have more than one permanent opponent while still being able to play all of the others on occasion. The reason for the former has to do with the imbalance between the schedules of cross-group teams and the reason for the latter has to do with the would-be imbalance between the schedules of in-group ones...

Put it this way: The reason why a team who finishes with more wins than all others in that 8-game scenario should be the champion when there is no CG is not per se because they have the most wins; it's because the number of wins they have plus the number of teams they did not play and finished ahead of (while having the same opponents) or otherwise outperformed is greater than that of any other team. That's automatic for first place when there's no tie. However, it is not automatic at any untied position between first and last.

Example: Team A has the most wins with 8. Team B has the second most wins with 7 and is in the the same group as A. Team C has the third most wins with 6 and is the top team in the other group. In this example, teams A & C finished ahead of all 7 teams they did not play and team B finished ahead of only 6 of the teams they did not play. So teams B & C are actually tied for 2nd:

1. Team A (8+7=15)
2. Team B (7+6=13)
2. Team C (6+7=13)

The team who should play team A in a CG is the winner of the head-to-head meeting between teams B & C, which of course could be C. So those indirect "wins" have to be included as points in the standings to ensure the right teams advance. Now, applying those indirect points frees teams to have more than one permanent opponent (provided pods are used) because it nullifies the problems of both imbalanced cross-group schedules and imbalanced in-group ones.

So with 4-team pods and the use of indirect points ("wins"): Sort the conference into four 4-team pods. Each year, split the field into 2 groups of 8, placing 2 of each team's 3 permanent opponents in the opposite group. Each team plays all 8 teams in the opposite group followed by their in-group annual rival. A point in the standings goes to the winner of each game, and regarding every 2 teams who do not play each other, a point in the standings goes to the one with more wins against the 8 teams in the opposite group (or the one with better stats should they tie), and just as soon as they mathematically eliminate the other.
(Tiebreakers)
https://imgur.com/K2990hs.jpg

That way a winner or "winner" is fairly determined between every 2 teams, allowing all teams to be fairly positioned in the standings despite having different schedules.

Here's a 4-year rotation in which all rotators play twice:

1 - (A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2) vs (The Rest)
2 - (A1 A2 B1 B2 C3 C4 D3 D4) vs (The Rest)
3 - (A1 A2 B3 B4 C3 C4 D1 D2) vs (The Rest)
4 - (A1 A2 B3 B4 C1 C2 D3 D4) vs (The Rest)

Some variations:

a) 10 games with 5 permanent opponents per team involving four split 4-team pods

b) 10 games with 4 permanent opponents per team (involving four split 4-team pods) and two rotators who are played thrice per 4-year cycle instead of twice

c) 10 games with some teams having 5 permanent opponents and the others 4 (a combination of A & B)

d) 11 games with 7 permanent opponents per team involving two split 8-team pods



Of course, the SEC would never use that point system. But that type of scheduling with 9 games is still a good way to go, IMO, because it lends the schedules of unpaired teams so much commonality. Absent a lot of parity at the top or plain bad luck, the two teams who should be in the CG in this or that year probably would be.

Dellenger says most officials think divisions are gone, as well as the idea of a "pod system." (Not sure what he means... Rotated impermanent divisions?)

Says it's down to divisionless 1-7 and divisionless (and presumably podless) 3-6.

It's hard to believe they'll land on 1-7 @ 8. Maybe 2-6 or 3-5? Still think they'll eventually add that 9th game.

(05-24-2022 05:49 PM)chester Wrote:  

Dellenger says most officials think divisions are gone, as well as the idea of a "pod system." (Not sure what he means... Rotated impermanent divisions?)

Says it's down to divisionless 1-7 and divisionless (and presumably podless) 3-6.

It's hard to believe they'll land on 1-7 @ 8. Maybe 2-6 or 3-5? Still think they'll eventually add that 9th game.

9 games with a 3 / 6-6 model makes sense. 8 games at a 1 / 7-7 model doesn't make sense from a rivals standpoint. Too many annual rivalries. But if they did the 1 / 7-7 model, the 1 would be:
Alabama-Auburn
Arkansas-Missouri
Florida-Georgia
Kentucky-South Carolina
LSU-Texas A&M
Mississippi-Mississippi St
Oklahoma-Texas
Tennessee-Vanderbilt

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more sense it make from a scheduling standpoint for the SEC to have 5 protected rivalries and allows them flexibility with the number of games they can play without altering their protected rivalry format.

8 games or 9 games w/ CCG semis: 4 rivals annually, 1 rival H&H every 3 years, everyone else H&H every 6 years min.

9 games or 10 games w/ CCG semis: 5 rivals annually, everyone else H&H every 5 years min.

10 games: 5 rivals annually, everyone else H&H every 4 years

Each SEC teams needs to protect their three most valued rivalry games. That may not happen at a 100% level, but effort and compromise will be needed to reach a consensus. ADs will need to get in a room and hash it out with the Commissioner and his staff. ESPN needs to be sidelined on this particular discussion and decision. There may be a few "backup" choices in play.

I lean towards favoring a 3-6 model of 9 conference games. All play 10 P-5 overall, accommodating existing SEC-ACC rivalries. Each schools has the flexibility to schedule 2 games with whomever they desire among G-5, independents, FCS, or other(s) among P-5. If/when the SEC expands further, they can modify the criteria accordingly.

(05-25-2022 10:30 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Each SEC teams needs to protect their three most valued rivalry games. That may not happen at a 100% level, but effort and compromise will be needed to reach a consensus. ADs will need to get in a room and hash it out with the Commissioner and his staff. ESPN needs to be sidelined on this particular discussion and decision. There may be a few "backup" choices in play.

I lean towards favoring a 3-6 model of 9 conference games. All play 10 P-5 overall, accommodating existing SEC-ACC rivalries. Each schools has the flexibility to schedule 2 games with whomever they desire among G-5, independents, FCS, or other(s) among P-5. If/when the SEC expands further, they can modify the criteria accordingly.

I would say don't sideline ESPN, because they decide the money. But other than that and league considerations, I agree. I'd say let each school list there top 3. If two schools match up, its automatic. It's "swipe right" for college football.

ESPN would have a prime interest in scheduling with date, time, place, of designated matchups. They would desire marquee games throughout the season which may require some games being played at times contrary to what has been traditional. Input of what they prefer/seek would be inclusive of information to incorporate during discussions. Consultation is fine and valuable.
ESPN being a "decider" element of each member school's chosen or negotiated opponents, in conference and occ, has not been past practice. I wouldn't suggest to cede any of that power or control at the most fundamental and basic level.

(05-26-2022 09:05 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  ESPN would have a prime interest in scheduling with date, time, place, of designated matchups. They would desire marquee games throughout the season which may require some games being played at times contrary to what has been traditional. Input of what they prefer/seek would be inclusive of information to incorporate during discussions. Consultation is fine and valuable.

ESPN being a "decider" element of each member school's chosen or negotiated opponents, in conference and occ, has not been past practice. I wouldn't suggest to cede any of that power or control at the most fundamental and basic level.

I agree that the SEC can make more made-for-TV matchups without ESPN being the entity that actually selects those matchups. My favorite model thus far is 3 permanent rivals and rotating through 4 of 12 every year. The 8th game may then be a made-for-TV opponent.

Then again, it may be easier and more lucrative to cede control of that 8th game to ESPN. Not sure there any team has 4 "must be every year" rivals. ESPN will continue to pit LSU-vs-Alabama so long as both have equitable strength, so it might be nice to have a game with flexible opponents.

(05-21-2022 05:19 PM)chester Wrote:  How about 2 from each other pod by cross-group instead? That way the number of opponents unpaired teams have in common is doubled, from 4 to 8.

I alternately think of that as "indirect," "anti-divisional," "transitive" or "comparative" scheduling, lol. That scheduling model along with a certain point system (one that will never happen) is, AFAIK, the fairest possible way to crown the football champion of a league that is too large to stage a round-robin, or otherwise doesn't.

Until you have 3 or 4 or, theoretically, 8 undefeated teams.

Head-to-head is one of the most universally accepted tie-breakers, don't sacrifice that to double the number of opponents such teams have in common. The SEC (like the Big Ten) will likely use strength of conference schedule anyway to break ties, instead of record vs. common opponents.

That way they can justify more best-vs-best scheduling. If Auburn finishes tied with South Carolina at 7-2, Auburn will likely have the stronger schedule and will advance.

Alright, my latest scheduling proposal presuming 9 games and wanting to play teams at least twice every 4 years. Teams are still placed in hidden scheduling divisions so that no more than 2 teams finish undefeated.

The image shows the permanent rivals.


Hidden Divisions A vs. B
Set 1, these sets stay put: ALA/AUB vs. TEX/A&M
Set 2, switch on odd years: UGA/UF/USC vs. LSU/MS/MSU
Set 3, switch on even years: OU/MIZ/ARK vs. TEN/UK/VDY

On years when your permanent rivals are in your same hidden division (A or B) you play the teams in your same Set that are in the opposite division.

(05-28-2022 01:30 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Alright, my latest scheduling proposal presuming 9 games and wanting to play teams at least twice every 4 years. Teams are still placed in hidden scheduling divisions so that no more than 2 teams finish undefeated.

The image shows the permanent rivals.


Hidden Divisions A vs. B
Set 1, these sets stay put: ALA/AUB vs. TEX/A&M
Set 2, switch on odd years: UGA/UF/USC vs. LSU/MS/MSU
Set 3, switch on even years: OU/MIZ/ARK vs. TEN/UK/VDY

On years when your permanent rivals are in your same hidden division (A or B) you play the teams in your same Set that are in the opposite division.

Mine is not in a pretty picture:

Alabama: Auburn, Mississippi St, Tennessee
Arkansas: Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi St
Florida: Georgia, LSU, South Carolina
Georgia: Auburn, Florida, South Carolina
Kentucky: Missouri, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
LSU: Florida, Mississippi, Texas A&M
Mississippi: LSU, Mississippi St, Vanderbilt
Mississippi St: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi
Missouri: Arkansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma
Oklahoma: Arkansas, Missouri, Texas
South Carolina: Florida, Georgia, Texas A&M
Tennessee: Alabama, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Texas: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Texas A&M: LSU, South Carolina, Texas
Vanderbilt: Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee

https://www.si.com/college/2022/05/24/se...ule-future

This has got to be poor reporting, right? If the SEC is keeping 8 games no way are they going to a 1-7 model. They don't need to play EVERY team twice every 4 years. Twice every 6 is fine, and every 5 worked well before A&M was added. At minimum 2 permanent rivals are needed and you can do 3 or 4 with fairly easy rotations for the others. If they keep 8 games, pods is the best play if they want to preserve scheduling divisions.

(05-28-2022 03:53 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 01:30 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Alright, my latest scheduling proposal presuming 9 games and wanting to play teams at least twice every 4 years. Teams are still placed in hidden scheduling divisions so that no more than 2 teams finish undefeated.

The image shows the permanent rivals.


Hidden Divisions A vs. B
Set 1, these sets stay put: ALA/AUB vs. TEX/A&M
Set 2, switch on odd years: UGA/UF/USC vs. LSU/MS/MSU
Set 3, switch on even years: OU/MIZ/ARK vs. TEN/UK/VDY

On years when your permanent rivals are in your same hidden division (A or B) you play the teams in your same Set that are in the opposite division.

Mine is not in a pretty picture:

Alabama: Auburn, Mississippi St, Tennessee
Arkansas: Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi St
Florida: Georgia, LSU, South Carolina
Georgia: Auburn, Florida, South Carolina
Kentucky: Missouri, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
LSU: Florida, Mississippi, Texas A&M
Mississippi: LSU, Mississippi St, Vanderbilt
Mississippi St: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi
Missouri: Arkansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma
Oklahoma: Arkansas, Missouri, Texas
South Carolina: Florida, Georgia, Texas A&M
Tennessee: Alabama, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Texas: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Texas A&M: LSU, South Carolina, Texas
Vanderbilt: Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee

The USC-A&M and LSU-UF rivalries are yuck to me; made because the far-away teams once needed to be "rivals." Take those out, add in LSU-MSU, A&M-Miss, Aub-UF and Vdy-USC. Miss-Vdy and MSU-Aub would need to be cut. Except maybe for Mississippi and Vanderbilt, these 8 teams would see this change as a scheduling upgrade.

Both versions can be smooshed into scheduling divisions. Here is your original:

A vs. B
Set 1, these sets stay put: Miz/OU vs. Ark/Tex
Set 2, switch on odd years: UK/Ten vs. A&M/USC
Set 3, switch on even years: Vdy/Miss vs. UF/LSU
Set 4, switch every year: Ala/MSU vs. Aub/UGA

(05-28-2022 12:28 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 05:19 PM)chester Wrote:  How about 2 from each other pod by cross-group instead? That way the number of opponents unpaired teams have in common is doubled, from 4 to 8.

I alternately think of that as "indirect," "anti-divisional," "transitive" or "comparative" scheduling, lol. That scheduling model along with a certain point system (one that will never happen) is, AFAIK, the fairest possible way to crown the football champion of a league that is too large to stage a round-robin, or otherwise doesn't.

Until you have 3 or 4 or, theoretically, 8 undefeated teams.

Head-to-head is one of the most universally accepted tie-breakers, don't sacrifice that to double the number of opponents such teams have in common. The SEC (like the Big Ten) will likely use strength of conference schedule anyway to break ties, instead of record vs. common opponents.

That way they can justify more best-vs-best scheduling. If Auburn finishes tied with South Carolina at 7-2, Auburn will likely have the stronger schedule and will advance.

You mean that with 8-game indirect schedules there could be as many 8 undefeated teams. With 9 games there could be no more than 4. Either way, that would be ok. The point of what I went on to describe would be to negate the advantages and disadvantages of imbalanced schedules. Any tie between any number of teams could then be fairly broken.

You know, the way I see it is, if we were to stage a foot race then we should mark the runners equidistant from the finish line, not blindly scatter them about at varying distances.

Anyway, they have reportedly nixed the idea of pods (as in groups of mutual permanent opponents), so there is no chance of indirect scheduling. (With IS and multiple annual rivals, it wouldn't be possible for all teams to occasionally play all others without the use of pods.) It's all good

(05-28-2022 03:53 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 01:30 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Alright, my latest scheduling proposal presuming 9 games and wanting to play teams at least twice every 4 years. Teams are still placed in hidden scheduling divisions so that no more than 2 teams finish undefeated.

The image shows the permanent rivals.


Hidden Divisions A vs. B
Set 1, these sets stay put: ALA/AUB vs. TEX/A&M
Set 2, switch on odd years: UGA/UF/USC vs. LSU/MS/MSU
Set 3, switch on even years: OU/MIZ/ARK vs. TEN/UK/VDY

On years when your permanent rivals are in your same hidden division (A or B) you play the teams in your same Set that are in the opposite division.

Mine is not in a pretty picture:

Alabama: Auburn, Mississippi St, Tennessee
Arkansas: Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi St
Florida: Georgia, LSU, South Carolina
Georgia: Auburn, Florida, South Carolina
Kentucky: Missouri, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
LSU: Florida, Mississippi, Texas A&M
Mississippi: LSU, Mississippi St, Vanderbilt
Mississippi St: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi
Missouri: Arkansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma
Oklahoma: Arkansas, Missouri, Texas
South Carolina: Florida, Georgia, Texas A&M
Tennessee: Alabama, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Texas: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Texas A&M: LSU, South Carolina, Texas
Vanderbilt: Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee

Dellenger talked about how they might give each of the "top" half of the league 2 permanent opponents from among each other and 1 from the "bottom" half. He placed Tennessee in the bottom group. Selfishly, I kinda hope it pans out that way because I've no desire to see Bama and State play every year. :shrug:

(05-28-2022 08:40 PM)Crayton Wrote:  https://www.si.com/college/2022/05/24/se...ule-future

This has got to be poor reporting, right? If the SEC is keeping 8 games no way are they going to a 1-7 model. They don't need to play EVERY team twice every 4 years. Twice every 6 is fine, and every 5 worked well before A&M was added. At minimum 2 permanent rivals are needed and you can do 3 or 4 with fairly easy rotations for the others. If they keep 8 games, pods is the best play if they want to preserve scheduling divisions.

ESPN has also reported that it's down to 1-7 or 3-6. But, yeah, it's hard to believe they would go with 1-7 if they stick with 8.

(05-28-2022 11:38 PM)chester Wrote:  Dellenger talked about how they might give each of the "top" half of the league 2 permanent opponents from among each other and 1 from the "bottom" half. He placed Tennessee in the bottom group. Selfishly, I kinda hope it pans out that way because I've no desire to see Bama and State play every year. :shrug:

The 2:1 ratio makes sense, but in 10 years the "top" and "bottom" teams may change. It might be better to give every team 2 permanent rivals (top or bottom doesn't matter) and sell the ability to reallocate that 3rd permanent game to ESPN. If Oklahoma-Florida are stuck together (yuck), so be it, but if Tennessee and Florida again emerge as perennial Top 15 teams, let us have the flexibility to reignite that sucker.

(05-28-2022 11:38 PM)chester Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 03:53 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 01:30 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Alright, my latest scheduling proposal presuming 9 games and wanting to play teams at least twice every 4 years. Teams are still placed in hidden scheduling divisions so that no more than 2 teams finish undefeated.

The image shows the permanent rivals.


Hidden Divisions A vs. B
Set 1, these sets stay put: ALA/AUB vs. TEX/A&M
Set 2, switch on odd years: UGA/UF/USC vs. LSU/MS/MSU
Set 3, switch on even years: OU/MIZ/ARK vs. TEN/UK/VDY

On years when your permanent rivals are in your same hidden division (A or B) you play the teams in your same Set that are in the opposite division.

Mine is not in a pretty picture:

Alabama: Auburn, Mississippi St, Tennessee
Arkansas: Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi St
Florida: Georgia, LSU, South Carolina
Georgia: Auburn, Florida, South Carolina
Kentucky: Missouri, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
LSU: Florida, Mississippi, Texas A&M
Mississippi: LSU, Mississippi St, Vanderbilt
Mississippi St: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi
Missouri: Arkansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma
Oklahoma: Arkansas, Missouri, Texas
South Carolina: Florida, Georgia, Texas A&M
Tennessee: Alabama, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Texas: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Texas A&M: LSU, South Carolina, Texas
Vanderbilt: Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee

Dellenger talked about how they might give each of the "top" half of the league 2 permanent opponents from among each other and 1 from the "bottom" half. He placed Tennessee in the bottom group. Selfishly, I kinda hope it pans out that way because I've no desire to see Bama and State play every year. :shrug:

This split would need to be revisited every 4 years or so. Success can be cyclical.

(05-25-2022 04:53 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(05-25-2022 10:30 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Each SEC teams needs to protect their three most valued rivalry games. That may not happen at a 100% level, but effort and compromise will be needed to reach a consensus. ADs will need to get in a room and hash it out with the Commissioner and his staff. ESPN needs to be sidelined on this particular discussion and decision. There may be a few "backup" choices in play.

I lean towards favoring a 3-6 model of 9 conference games. All play 10 P-5 overall, accommodating existing SEC-ACC rivalries. Each schools has the flexibility to schedule 2 games with whomever they desire among G-5, independents, FCS, or other(s) among P-5. If/when the SEC expands further, they can modify the criteria accordingly.

I would say don't sideline ESPN, because they decide the money. But other than that and league considerations, I agree. I'd say let each school list there top 3. If two schools match up, its automatic. It's "swipe right" for college football.

what if they don't match up???