+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: CUSAbbs (/forum-514.html)
+---- Forum: CUSA Conference Talk (/forum-439.html)
+---- Thread: this year's conference configuration - why? (/thread-698174.html)
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - Attackcoog - 08-14-2014 02:55 AM
(08-13-2014 06:25 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:(08-12-2014 04:33 PM)ESE84 Wrote:(08-12-2014 03:57 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote: I still vote Zipper configuration.... thus nobody has any advantage travelwise over anyone else...
No. We're at 14 because we wanted some geographic rivals. The four Texas programs, and Louisiana Tech, need to play each other every year. I feel lucky to see the storied Southern Mississippi program also slotted into the West.
So add in a permament rotation for game #7 and then a "free choice" for #8. (i'm assuming an 8 game conference slate and 4 OOC games.)
Permament Rival Rotating Division
Texas 1............. UTSA Rice Texas 2/ Gulf Coast
UTSA would have to play La Tech or UNT every other year
RIce would have to play USM or UTEP every other year.
Texas 2............. UTEP UNT Texas 1/Gulf Coast
UTEP would have to play Rice or La Tech every other year
UNT would have to play USM or UTSA every other year
Appalachian....... Marshall WKY TN Valley/Florida
Marshall: UAB or Charlotte
WKY: MTSU or FIU
Gulf Coast......... USM La Tech Texas 1/Texas 2
USM: UNT or Rice
La Tech: UTEP or UTSA
East Coast........ ODU Charlotte Florida/TN Valley
ODU: FAU or UAB
Charlotte; FIU or MTSU
TN Valley.......... MTSU UAB Appalachian/East Coast
MTSU: WKY or Charlotte
UAB: Marshall or ODU
Florida.............. FIU FAU East Coast/Appalachian
FIU: Charlotte or WKU
FAU: Marshall or ODU
If FIU were to play charlotte than FAU would have to play Marshall that year. And vice-versa. The only catch is you have to be willing to divvy up the home/aways to make it right for everyone.
Deregulation will allow a conference like CUSA to design schedules that make sense. Once degregulation happens, I'd divide the conference into clusters. Those clusters would play every year---and the rest of their schedules would rotate evenly through the rest of the conference.
So the Texas cluster Rice/UTSA/N Tx/UTEP play each other every year. The Florida cluster (FIU/FAU) just play each other every year--beyond that, they rotate equally through everyone else. The Eastern cluster (ODU/ Char/Marshall/WKU/MTSU) play each other evey year. The central gulf coasters (S Miss/LaTech/UAB) play each other each year. So you just play the games in your cluster every year--the rest of your games just rotate equally through the rest of the conference. That lets you see the othe teams in the conference more regularly while preserving the annual games that are most likely to become heated rivalries. The CCG would just be the two best records (or putting the two highest ranked schools in the CCG might be better for capturing the access bowl). I'm hoping the AAC eventually does something like this cluster system im describing.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - bladhmadh - 08-14-2014 05:37 AM
(08-13-2014 04:38 PM)goliath74 Wrote: My question is how some on this thread go from "UAB to the West or not" argument to "split Florida schools". Really? There are no other options before we go to something as silly as splitting schools that are 50 miles apart (with no other schools within 200)?
USM and Tulane were split. But as long as you make it a permanent crossover game who cares if they are in different divisions. Both FIU and FAU are going to have to fly to each game anyway. If they are in separate divisions there is the chance they could play twice in one year
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - Michael in Raleigh - 08-14-2014 12:35 PM
(08-14-2014 02:55 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:(08-13-2014 06:25 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:(08-12-2014 04:33 PM)ESE84 Wrote:(08-12-2014 03:57 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote: I still vote Zipper configuration.... thus nobody has any advantage travelwise over anyone else...
No. We're at 14 because we wanted some geographic rivals. The four Texas programs, and Louisiana Tech, need to play each other every year. I feel lucky to see the storied Southern Mississippi program also slotted into the West.
So add in a permament rotation for game #7 and then a "free choice" for #8. (i'm assuming an 8 game conference slate and 4 OOC games.)
Permament Rival Rotating Division
Texas 1............. UTSA Rice Texas 2/ Gulf Coast
UTSA would have to play La Tech or UNT every other year
RIce would have to play USM or UTEP every other year.
Texas 2............. UTEP UNT Texas 1/Gulf Coast
UTEP would have to play Rice or La Tech every other year
UNT would have to play USM or UTSA every other year
Appalachian....... Marshall WKY TN Valley/Florida
Marshall: UAB or Charlotte
WKY: MTSU or FIU
Gulf Coast......... USM La Tech Texas 1/Texas 2
USM: UNT or Rice
La Tech: UTEP or UTSA
East Coast........ ODU Charlotte Florida/TN Valley
ODU: FAU or UAB
Charlotte; FIU or MTSU
TN Valley.......... MTSU UAB Appalachian/East Coast
MTSU: WKY or Charlotte
UAB: Marshall or ODU
Florida.............. FIU FAU East Coast/Appalachian
FIU: Charlotte or WKU
FAU: Marshall or ODU
If FIU were to play charlotte than FAU would have to play Marshall that year. And vice-versa. The only catch is you have to be willing to divvy up the home/aways to make it right for everyone.
Deregulation will allow a conference like CUSA to design schedules that make sense. Once degregulation happens, I'd divide the conference into clusters. Those clusters would play every year---and the rest of their schedules would rotate evenly through the rest of the conference.
So the Texas cluster Rice/UTSA/N Tx/UTEP play each other every year. The Florida cluster (FIU/FAU) just play each other every year--beyond that, they rotate equally through everyone else. The Eastern cluster (ODU/ Char/Marshall/WKU/MTSU) play each other evey year. The central gulf coasters (S Miss/LaTech/UAB) play each other each year. So you just play the games in your cluster every year--the rest of your games just rotate equally through the rest of the conference. That lets you see the othe teams in the conference more regularly while preserving the annual games that are most likely to become heated rivalries. The CCG would just be the two best records (or putting the two highest ranked schools in the CCG might be better for capturing the access bowl). I'm hoping the AAC eventually does something like this cluster system im describing.
Hello, I'm new to this board. I had an idea along those lines. I think an 8-game schedule where each team plays three opponents annually and rotates five opponents on for two years, then the remaining five opponents for the next two years, could work very well. This way, every team in the conference plays every other team in the conference at least once on the road and once at home in a four-year cycle.
Opponents for every year:
UTEP: UTSA, North Texas, Rice
UTSA: UTEP, North Texas, Rice
North Texas: UTEP, UTSA, Louisiana Tech
Rice: UTEP, UTSA, Louisiana Tech
Louisiana Tech: North Texas, Rice, Southern Miss
Southern Miss: Louisiana Tech, UAB, MTSU
UAB: Southern Miss, MTSU, Charlotte
MTSU: Southern Miss, UAB, WKU
WKU: MTSU, Marshall, FAU
Charlotte: UAB, Old Dominion, FIU
Old Dominion: Charlotte, Marshall, FAU
Marshall: WKU, Old Dominion, FIU
FIU: Charlotte, Marshall, FAU
FAU: WKU, Old Dominion, FIU
If divisions no longer are mandatory for CCG's, what would you think about this?
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - Volkmar - 08-14-2014 01:14 PM
You guys are coming up with some interesting alternatives, but all this craziness I'm reading just points to the fact that conferences are too large to begin with. I said a long time ago that ten teams in a conference is an ideal number because it means every team plays the same nine teams yearly, giving much more validation to conference rankings since everyone is playing the same schedule. It also still allows for 3 OOC games. When you start getting into bloated 13 or 14-team conferences, it just screws everything up, and you're left with the scheduling quandary we currently have.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - loki_the_bubba - 08-14-2014 01:16 PM
(08-14-2014 01:14 PM)Volkmar Wrote: You guys are coming up with some interesting alternatives, but all this craziness I'm reading just points to the fact that conferences are too large to begin with. I said a long time ago that ten teams in a conference is an ideal number because it means every team in the conference plays the same nine teams yearly, giving much more validation to conference rankings since everyone is playing the same schedule. It also still allows for 3 OOC games. When you start getting into bloated 13 or 14-team conferences, it just screws everything up, and you're left with the scheduling quandary we currently have.
Nine teams is better so you can get balanced home and away in an eight game round robin.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - Volkmar - 08-14-2014 01:19 PM
(08-14-2014 01:16 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:(08-14-2014 01:14 PM)Volkmar Wrote: You guys are coming up with some interesting alternatives, but all this craziness I'm reading just points to the fact that conferences are too large to begin with. I said a long time ago that ten teams in a conference is an ideal number because it means every team in the conference plays the same nine teams yearly, giving much more validation to conference rankings since everyone is playing the same schedule. It also still allows for 3 OOC games. When you start getting into bloated 13 or 14-team conferences, it just screws everything up, and you're left with the scheduling quandary we currently have.
Nine teams is better so you can get balanced home and away in an eight game round robin.
Very true, and it would also allow for four OOC games rather than three.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - BeliefBlazer - 08-14-2014 01:39 PM
Great idea. Let's kick out the last 5 teams added to get back down to 9.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - blazers9911 - 08-14-2014 04:25 PM
(08-13-2014 10:05 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote: How about
East
Charlotte
FAU
FIU
Marshall
MT
ODU
WKU
West
Louisiana Tech
Rice
UAB
UNT
USM
UTEP
UTSA
We are all well aware of what you want...
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - Attackcoog - 08-14-2014 04:53 PM
(08-14-2014 01:16 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:(08-14-2014 01:14 PM)Volkmar Wrote: You guys are coming up with some interesting alternatives, but all this craziness I'm reading just points to the fact that conferences are too large to begin with. I said a long time ago that ten teams in a conference is an ideal number because it means every team in the conference plays the same nine teams yearly, giving much more validation to conference rankings since everyone is playing the same schedule. It also still allows for 3 OOC games. When you start getting into bloated 13 or 14-team conferences, it just screws everything up, and you're left with the scheduling quandary we currently have.
Nine teams is better so you can get balanced home and away in an eight game round robin.
8 or 9 teams is fine if they are the only teams you really care about. Some of these more flexible options allow schools to play more of the games that mean a lot to them and play less of the ones that are less heated. Big conferences make for better TV by making games in Florida important in Texas--helps build a bigger TV audience. By not tying yourself to 6 or 7 divisional games, the schools get to enjoy more variety in the conference schedule. I think thats actually a good thing that can help tie the conference together.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - dragonzden - 08-14-2014 04:53 PM
What if they made the divisions North and South instead of east and west? I don't have a conference map of the locations of schools in front of me so this is just a suggestion.
However, if the conference goes to 16 teams then there should be 4 divisions, north, south, east, and west with four teams in each division.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - Ragu - 08-14-2014 06:41 PM
(08-14-2014 04:25 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:(08-13-2014 10:05 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote: How about
East
Charlotte
FAU
FIU
Marshall
MT
ODU
WKU
West
Louisiana Tech
Rice
UAB
UNT
USM
UTEP
UTSA
We are all well aware of what you want...
Well this is what it is going to be....
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - MTPiKapp - 08-14-2014 06:56 PM
(08-14-2014 04:25 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:(08-13-2014 10:05 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote: How about
East
Charlotte
FAU
FIU
Marshall
MT
ODU
WKU
West
Louisiana Tech
Rice
UAB
UNT
USM
UTEP
UTSA
We are all well aware of what you want...
Oh you do? Did you miss the part where I acknowledged that I wish MT and UAB were playing every year?
That configuration is not "what I want" that configuration is what is going to happen.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - ESE84 - 08-14-2014 07:02 PM
(08-14-2014 01:39 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote: Great idea. Let's kick out the last 5 teams added to get back down to 9.
Uh, the last three in were Western Kentucky, Middle Tennessee, and Florida Atlantic, three of the teams UAB fans seem to want to play.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - Side Show Joe - 08-14-2014 08:18 PM
Either of these two alignments works for me.
West
North Texas
Rice
Southern Miss
UTEP
UTSA
Louisiana Tech
UAB
East
Marshall
MT
FAU
FIU
WKU
ODU
Charlotte
OR
West
North Texas
Rice
Southern Miss
UTEP
UTSA
Louisiana Tech
East
Marshall
MT
FAU
FIU
WKU
ODU
Charlotte
UAB
Take your pick.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - blazers9911 - 08-15-2014 10:15 AM
(08-14-2014 06:56 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:(08-14-2014 04:25 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:(08-13-2014 10:05 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote: How about
East
Charlotte
FAU
FIU
Marshall
MT
ODU
WKU
West
Louisiana Tech
Rice
UAB
UNT
USM
UTEP
UTSA
We are all well aware of what you want...
Oh you do? Did you miss the part where I acknowledged that I wish MT and UAB were playing every year?
That configuration is not "what I want" that configuration is what is going to happen.
Well I'm glad you know so much. This was the first time I saw somebody I trust say UAB didn't want to go west. If that is the case, other options need to at least be considered.