(08-03-2015 12:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 12:44 PM)Jimi357 Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 10:34 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  I am opposed to divisional scheduling for a 14 team league, so I certainly would not want it for a 16 team league. When the NCAA de-regulates conference championship games, each conference can schedule as it wants.

The first thing the ACC would need to decide is whether to play 8 or 9 league games. As we will not go to 16 without ND all in, and ND going from 6 to 8 ACC games will be hard enough to secure, the ACC will still play 8 with 16 teams.

I say the best way to handle that is to have each team play 2 or 3 annual rivals, and rotate everyone else. That way, everyone plays everyone very quickly. 2 would be best for the league as a whole, but because of MooU we probably would have to play 3 annual rivals.

UNC-UVA is The South's Oldest Rivalry. It must be played annually. You want to make certain virtually 100% of UNC football fans demand to go to the SEC ASAP - ruin the UNC-UVA game. UNC-Dook is the nation's best all sports rivalry. That game must be played annually.

And then there is MooU. I would love to never play Moo in any sport any time. I am on record saying that the only plus I find worthwhile about going to the SEC is getting shed of Moo forever. I am a native Tennessean and lived in NC only 2 years after graduating from UNC. I have 0 interest, even from any family or a single friend, in giving Moo so much as the time of day. And I have 0 respect for the fan base.

But UNC will always take care of that SEC-worst-case level of trash. And if we do not play Moo annually, all the little Wuffies heads will explode. So the ACC must schedule to have each team play at least 3 teams annually.

If each of us plays 3 annually, and we have 16 teams and an 8 game slate, then we each have 12 teams left rotating onto our schedules. That means 5 1 season, and 5 new teams in season 2, and in season 3 the final 2 teams plus 3 from season 1. Season is the remaining pair from season 1 and 3 from season two - etc.

That means all teams play all other teams at least once every 3 years. It gets us all around the league quickly.

The two teams with the best records meet for the championship.

Why spread them out over three seasons? If you have 3 rivals you go to a nine game conference schedule. Play six teams this year and the other six next year. In this format you play every team in the conference home/away in a four year window, which means every senior on your team has played in every stadium in the conference.

This is a perfect setup. You see the teams in your conference as often as possible but it also increases the value of the conference. An extra conference game is worth more to ESPN. Even if it is the two worst teams in the conference playing, more people will watch it than will watch UofL play South East School of the Blind North.

[b]I think a 9 game schedule in all P5 conferences is a certainty in a couple of years. Might as well do it and start making more money.[/b]

If you can fill a large stadium, and a 9 game league schedule costs you a home game worth $4-5 million at the gate, you might guess you won't be better off financially. And the schools that can't do that aren't going to cause ESPN or Fox to throw more money the league's way because they play more games.

Fair point. You would lose a home game every other year but it would get Clemson and FSU to school every four years. For a school like Duke who only sees those schools every ten years, those home games would be very lucrative. If you spread out the top schools you would be able to package a schedule that sells more tickets. It would also create marquee games more often. That UofL Miami game last year did good for ESPN. They won't play again for years under the current format. While WF v Pitt doesn't move the ESPN needle, VT v FSU does. Miami v Clem does. Louisville v GT does.