(07-31-2015 07:21 PM)esayem Wrote:  We need to get rid of divisions and schedule the games that make the most sense for fans, like the Southern Conference and SEC did way back. Get rid of divisions and have like four permanent rivals and rotate the others.

(07-31-2015 07:21 PM)esayem Wrote:  We need to get rid of divisions and schedule the games that make the most sense for fans, like the Southern Conference and SEC did way back. Get rid of divisions and have like four permanent rivals and rotate the others.

(07-31-2015 07:04 PM)Jimi357 Wrote:  All I ever hear is the pod system. What if every team had three constant rivals? You get a 9 game conference slate and play 6 of the remaining 12 every year. In this model you play every team in the conference home and home every four years.

Would this format still allow for a CCG? What do you guys think?

(07-31-2015 11:37 PM)esayem Wrote:  It's because UNC wants to play Duke, Wake, State, and UVA yearly. Why else would UNC schedule Wake OOC?

(07-31-2015 07:04 PM)Jimi357 Wrote:  All I ever hear is the pod system. What if every team had three constant rivals? You get a 9 game conference slate and play 6 of the remaining 12 every year. In this model you play every team in the conference home and home every four years.

Would this format still allow for a CCG? What do you guys think?

(08-01-2015 09:43 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  With two divisions you only need one playoff game. If yo go to three or four pods how many playoff games are needed?

(08-01-2015 09:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 07:04 PM)Jimi357 Wrote:  All I ever hear is the pod system. What if every team had three constant rivals? You get a 9 game conference slate and play 6 of the remaining 12 every year. In this model you play every team in the conference home and home every four years.

Would this format still allow for a CCG? What do you guys think?

I've tried to make that work on paper, and have never been able to do it. With different teams all having different ideas about who their three permanent rivals should be, schedules always wind up a bit wonky. The pods are more balanced, and accomplish the same general goal.

(08-01-2015 12:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  To make everybody happy, it would have to be larger than three. Five is more plausible. So you see less teams you DON'T want to play. And that's a bad thing???? Well pardon me if I don't shed many tears for not playing Louisville or Syracuse as often. I would have listed BC as well, but the game in Ireland is pretty damned cool of them.

I'll add the obligatory note here that if you move to a megaconference like my signature, you could not only see almost exclusively teams you want to play, but you'd eliminate lame OOC games (looking at you NCST and Duke), the PITA of OOC scheduling altogether, but still have a trickle of variety from the greater region, and you'd have THE RETURN OF THE HOME AND HOME ROUND ROBIN in basketball with your division. Have I mentioned yet how a megaconference solves all these problems while making you filthy huge piles of lucre?

(08-01-2015 10:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 12:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  To make everybody happy, it would have to be larger than three. Five is more plausible. So you see less teams you DON'T want to play. And that's a bad thing???? Well pardon me if I don't shed many tears for not playing Louisville or Syracuse as often. I would have listed BC as well, but the game in Ireland is pretty damned cool of them.

I'll add the obligatory note here that if you move to a megaconference like my signature, you could not only see almost exclusively teams you want to play, but you'd eliminate lame OOC games (looking at you NCST and Duke), the PITA of OOC scheduling altogether, but still have a trickle of variety from the greater region, and you'd have THE RETURN OF THE HOME AND HOME ROUND ROBIN in basketball with your division. Have I mentioned yet how a megaconference solves all these problems while making you filthy huge piles of lucre?

Basically, your signature creates one conference by merging three conferences. But you have to sacrifice two schools - BC and Iowa State - to make it work. I am partial to 9 team conferences/divisions as you are. But I'm not willing to make anybody walk the plank to make it happen.

I would keep the three conferences, but reshuffle the deck just a little.

I would move West Virginia to the ACC, bringing the B12 down to nine.

Then, I would move Missouri and Vandy to the SEC West, bringing them to nine and the SEC East to five. I would bring them up to nine by moving Ga Tech, UNC, Duke and Virginia from the ACC, leaving the ACC with 11. I'd bring them back up to 12 by adding Cincy.

The three 9 team divisions/conferences play a full round robin, with no crossovers (unless two teams agree to play OOC). Divide the ACC by geography:

BC, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia, Cincy and Louisville.
FSU, Clemson, Miami, NC State, Wake Forest, Va Tech.

Play 5 and 3, with no permanent rivals. Notre Dame plays north division teams every two years and south division every three years.

The two ACC divisions still play a CCG, as do the two SEC divisions to produce a champion. Since the nine team SEC West doesn't play against the East in the regular season, they can play a challenge series every year against the nine team B12.

I can't see a single team whose schedule would be made worse by this, and I can see a lot whose would be improved.

As you would, I would look forward to a return of the home and home round robin in hoops for 27 of these schools. And I would love to see Duke, UNC and Kentucky in the same division.

What would sweeten the deal for me is if the ACC were added to the SEC network as part of the bargain. Their footprint would cover roughly half of the US population.

(08-01-2015 09:49 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 09:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 07:04 PM)Jimi357 Wrote:  All I ever hear is the pod system. What if every team had three constant rivals? You get a 9 game conference slate and play 6 of the remaining 12 every year. In this model you play every team in the conference home and home every four years.

Would this format still allow for a CCG? What do you guys think?

I've tried to make that work on paper, and have never been able to do it. With different teams all having different ideas about who their three permanent rivals should be, schedules always wind up a bit wonky. The pods are more balanced, and accomplish the same general goal.

Honestly, four pods and four divisions pretty much work in identical fashion except that one provides an easy set up for expansion of the conference post season while the other is just working within the current status quo system.

With four team pods, you would have to switch up the pod combination every year in order to achieve a full conference scheduling in a three year period. With four divisions of four teams in each, you can actually do that in two years with a 9 game conference schedule. Now that gets pushed to three years if you have any permanent cross division rivals but even with that, it's still equivalent to the best that you can do with pods.

(08-01-2015 10:14 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 10:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 12:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  To make everybody happy, it would have to be larger than three. Five is more plausible. So you see less teams you DON'T want to play. And that's a bad thing???? Well pardon me if I don't shed many tears for not playing Louisville or Syracuse as often. I would have listed BC as well, but the game in Ireland is pretty damned cool of them.

I'll add the obligatory note here that if you move to a megaconference like my signature, you could not only see almost exclusively teams you want to play, but you'd eliminate lame OOC games (looking at you NCST and Duke), the PITA of OOC scheduling altogether, but still have a trickle of variety from the greater region, and you'd have THE RETURN OF THE HOME AND HOME ROUND ROBIN in basketball with your division. Have I mentioned yet how a megaconference solves all these problems while making you filthy huge piles of lucre?

Basically, your signature creates one conference by merging three conferences. But you have to sacrifice two schools - BC and Iowa State - to make it work. I am partial to 9 team conferences/divisions as you are. But I'm not willing to make anybody walk the plank to make it happen.

I would keep the three conferences, but reshuffle the deck just a little.

I would move West Virginia to the ACC, bringing the B12 down to nine.

Then, I would move Missouri and Vandy to the SEC West, bringing them to nine and the SEC East to five. I would bring them up to nine by moving Ga Tech, UNC, Duke and Virginia from the ACC, leaving the ACC with 11. I'd bring them back up to 12 by adding Cincy.

The three 9 team divisions/conferences play a full round robin, with no crossovers (unless two teams agree to play OOC). Divide the ACC by geography:

BC, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia, Cincy and Louisville.
FSU, Clemson, Miami, NC State, Wake Forest, Va Tech.

Play 5 and 3, with no permanent rivals. Notre Dame plays north division teams every two years and south division every three years.

The two ACC divisions still play a CCG, as do the two SEC divisions to produce a champion. Since the nine team SEC West doesn't play against the East in the regular season, they can play a challenge series every year against the nine team B12.

I can't see a single team whose schedule would be made worse by this, and I can see a lot whose would be improved.

As you would, I would look forward to a return of the home and home round robin in hoops for 27 of these schools. And I would love to see Duke, UNC and Kentucky in the same division.

What would sweeten the deal for me is if the ACC were added to the SEC network as part of the bargain. Their footprint would cover roughly half of the US population.