Divisons should always be geography based. Just look at the ACC for how not to do divisions splits (and even Big 10 for that matter).

I think it should be

North
Cincinnati
UCONN
Rutgers
Louisville
Temple
Memphis

South
UCF
USF
SDSU
Boise State
Houston
SMU

You have the Northeast teams all grouped up nicely and you have the 6 South teams perfectly in 3 sets of 2. Also its much more balanced from a historical football strength perspective.

Also it guarantees every team with at least 1 trip to either Florida or Texas (with the 3 crossover games) each year and visiting the other state the following year.

(09-11-2012 10:18 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 10:11 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  This is the only option that truly makes sense to me.

Division A: Old Timers Division

UL
UC
USF
UConn
Rutgers
Temple

Division B: Newcomers Division

Boise
SDSU
Houston
SMU
Memphis
UCF

You could put UCF in the Old Timer's Division and move Temple out west at least until Navy and a western team are available. I'm for keeping the remaining schools in the same division since they have a history together. Other than that, if they go to zipper divisions, who cares, they are all about the same.

Agreed and I would bet 99% of the people in the old-time division would agree as well.

Coaches are going to want access to every region now that the conference has expanded so much. Florida, Texas and Western schools are going to need to be in each division.

If you put USF, UCF, SMU, Houston, SDSU, and Boise State in the same division and group the Florida schools, Texas schools and SDSU/Boise State into crossover groups for the other division. Then with 3 crossover games (1 vs Florida, 1 vs Texas, 1 verses California/Idaho) you guarantee every team a visit to Florida or Texas EVERY year. And visit to the other state the following year.

For instance UCONN would be at USF and host SMU year one. Then at SMU the following year and host USF. Then they would be at UCF the next year and host Houston and in the fourth year host UCF and be at Houston. This would continue every four years. Guarentees trips to Florida or Texas every year.

(09-11-2012 12:59 PM)namssa Wrote:  If you put USF, UCF, SMU, Houston, SDSU, and Boise State in the same division and group the Florida schools, Texas schools and SDSU/Boise State into crossover groups for the other division. Then with 3 crossover games (1 vs Florida, 1 vs Texas, 1 verses California/Idaho) you guarantee every team a visit to Florida or Texas EVERY year. And visit to the other state the following year.

For instance UCONN would be at USF and host SMU year one. Then at SMU the following year and host USF. Then they would be at UCF the next year and host Houston and in the fourth year host UCF and be at Houston. This would continue every four years. Guarentees trips to Florida or Texas every year.

That's not going to work out when the league goes to 14 and there are only two crossover games per year. Then you're going to see schools playing in FL or TX only twice every 7 years (or worse). That's why that setup won't work long term.

You have to go to 9 conference games when you go to 7 per division. So you still have the three crossover games. Zipper format is just plain stupid. The average fan will NEVER know what team is in what division. I still don't know who is in what division in the ACC.

(09-11-2012 01:25 PM)namssa Wrote:  You have to go to 9 conference games when you go to 7 per division. So you still have the three crossover games. Zipper format is just plain stupid. The average fan will NEVER know what team is in what division. I still don't know who is in what division in the ACC.

They "could" go to 9 conf games....but no, they don't HAVE to.

SEC, is now a 14 team conf, still playing 8 conf games per year.

ACC, which will soon be a 14 team conf IS moving to 9 conf games in the very near future.

Correct, you don't HAVE to go to 9 conf games, but you would have to if you wanted to visit Florida or Texas at least once a year under this scheduling format.

It will be interesting to see what the Big East decides to do.

I always liked this setup

Cincinnati, Memphis, Louisville, Rutgers, UConn, Temple, (Navy)
USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, Boise State, SDSU, (Western team)

I liked this even better if there are nine conference games. One crossover (made for tv game each season) and you rotate the other schools. The crossover game could change each season as well depending on pre-season rankings. I feel this system protects all rivalry games, gives schools a chance to recruit in different parts of the country without breaking up the geography of the conference like the ACC and the Big Ten did.

I'd go with geographic breakdown. Remember that this is just for three seasons until Navy and team #14 come in.

EAST:
Rutgers
UConn
Temple
Cincy
UofL
USF
(UCF '15)

WEST:
Boise
SD St
Houston
SMU
Memphis
UCF (until '15)
(Navy in '15)
(Team 14 in '15)

(09-11-2012 01:35 PM)namssa Wrote:  Correct, you don't HAVE to go to 9 conf games, but you would have to if you wanted to visit Florida or Texas at least once a year under this scheduling format.

It will be interesting to see what the Big East decides to do.

Even if the Big East went to a 9-game schedule, that still doesn't guarantee a trip to either FL or TX every year. It's more likely 5 or 6 trips out of 7 years, but not a guaranteed trip every year. There will be years when teams won't get to either.

And keep in mind that the zipper allows the TV deal to provide the league more exposure. Road trips in the Big East are going to be pretty much only by plane anyway (NE, FL, TX, and mid-south pairs/trios excluded).

(09-11-2012 01:59 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  I always liked this setup

Cincinnati, Memphis, Louisville, Rutgers, UConn, Temple, (Navy)
USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, Boise State, SDSU, (Western team)

I liked this even better if there are nine conference games. One crossover (made for tv game each season) and you rotate the other schools. The crossover game could change each season as well depending on pre-season rankings. I feel this system protects all rivalry games, gives schools a chance to recruit in different parts of the country without breaking up the geography of the conference like the ACC and the Big Ten did.

I certainly wouldn't mind that alignment... Nevertheless, in a few years, I suspect that the 2nd group would be the most powerful in the conference (by wide margin). When you have all the Florida, Texas, and Western schools in one division, the talent disparity will organically favor that division.

(09-11-2012 02:52 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 01:59 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  I always liked this setup

Cincinnati, Memphis, Louisville, Rutgers, UConn, Temple, (Navy)
USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, Boise State, SDSU, (Western team)

I liked this even better if there are nine conference games. One crossover (made for tv game each season) and you rotate the other schools. The crossover game could change each season as well depending on pre-season rankings. I feel this system protects all rivalry games, gives schools a chance to recruit in different parts of the country without breaking up the geography of the conference like the ACC and the Big Ten did.

I certainly wouldn't mind that alignment... Nevertheless, in a few years, I suspect that the 2nd group would be the most powerful in the conference. When you have all the Florida, Texas, and Western schools in one division, the talent disparity will organically favor that division.

Disagree.

While location can certainly be a factor in regards to recruiting...for every top local player that wants to 'stay home', there are probably 3 or 4 others that "want to leave town"....as many locals view their local college as "13th Grade" (i.e. where everyone from HS goes to.). Many with scholarship offers want to "go away to college"...as that scholarship offers open up a ton of possibilities that wouldn't have been possible before (i.e. the VERY high cost of out-of-state tuition/room/board at many Univ).

Big East Football has had a Florida Member since Day 1 (1991) but the last FL Champ for the conf was back in 2003, when Miami were "co-champions".

USF is located in FLA...yet teams like Louisville, Cincinnati and even UCONN have won multiple share of Big East titles while USF does not.

Just because Big East is adding new members in TX and FL...doesn't mean any of those teams will be "shoe-ins" for future titles.

(09-11-2012 02:56 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 02:52 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 01:59 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  I always liked this setup

Cincinnati, Memphis, Louisville, Rutgers, UConn, Temple, (Navy)
USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, Boise State, SDSU, (Western team)

I liked this even better if there are nine conference games. One crossover (made for tv game each season) and you rotate the other schools. The crossover game could change each season as well depending on pre-season rankings. I feel this system protects all rivalry games, gives schools a chance to recruit in different parts of the country without breaking up the geography of the conference like the ACC and the Big Ten did.

I certainly wouldn't mind that alignment... Nevertheless, in a few years, I suspect that the 2nd group would be the most powerful in the conference. When you have all the Florida, Texas, and Western schools in one division, the talent disparity will organically favor that division.

Disagree.

While location can certainly be a factor in regards to recruiting...for every top local player that wants to 'stay home', there are probably 3 or 4 others that "want to leave town"....as many locals view their local college as "13th Grade" (i.e. where everyone from HS goes to.). Many with scholarship offers want to "go away to college"...as that scholarship offers open up a ton of possibilities that wouldn't have been possible before (i.e. the VERY high cost of out-of-state tuition/room/board at many Univ).

Big East Football has had a Florida Member since Day 1 (1991) but the last FL Champ for the conf was back in 2003, when Miami were "co-champions".

USF is located in FLA...yet teams like Louisville, Cincinnati and even UCONN have won multiple share of Big East titles while USF does not.

Just because Big East is adding new members in TX and FL...doesn't mean any of those teams will be "shoe-ins" for future titles.

When they are collectively in one division, it's a good bet that one of the members of that division will be the BE Champion. Especially when Boise State is also in that division.

^^^ Exactly. Also, don't think for a second that schools in the first divison don't benefit from recruiting in fertile areas. I'll stack Ohio, NJ and PA up there with anyone in terms of quality of recruits. In addition, schools like UC and Louisville recruit very heavily in the south, particularly in Florida and GA.

(09-11-2012 01:59 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  I always liked this setup

Cincinnati, Memphis, Louisville, Rutgers, UConn, Temple, (Navy)
USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, Boise State, SDSU, (Western team)

I liked this even better if there are nine conference games. One crossover (made for tv game each season) and you rotate the other schools. The crossover game could change each season as well depending on pre-season rankings. I feel this system protects all rivalry games, gives schools a chance to recruit in different parts of the country without breaking up the geography of the conference like the ACC and the Big Ten did.

That divisional structure makes way more sense than any zipper division set up. If people are concerned about recruiting Texas and Florida, then plan accordingly. There is going to be 2 (or 3 if we go to a 9 game schedule) crossover games, so there will be exposure in those states. If a team wants guaranteed exposure, simply utilize your OOC to get games in Texas/Florida in years where you are not traveling there for league play. The important thing is being on TV in those states and our TV package is going to make that happen. From what I can see, all these schools have already established thier primary recruiting grounds. The new areas are just icing on the cake.

(09-11-2012 01:59 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  I always liked this setup

Cincinnati, Memphis, Louisville, Rutgers, UConn, Temple, (Navy)
USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, Boise State, SDSU, (Western team)

I liked this even better if there are nine conference games. One crossover (made for tv game each season) and you rotate the other schools. The crossover game could change each season as well depending on pre-season rankings. I feel this system protects all rivalry games, gives schools a chance to recruit in different parts of the country without breaking up the geography of the conference like the ACC and the Big Ten did.

This is a great alignment. It keeps the 4 Northeastern schools and the Cincinnati/Memphis/Louisville trifecta together. If I was the commissioner, this is the alignment that I'd push for. Unfortunately, I fear that the powers that be are probably going to be fixated on not having all of the Florida and Texas schools in the same division.

(09-11-2012 03:19 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 02:56 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 02:52 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 01:59 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  I always liked this setup

Cincinnati, Memphis, Louisville, Rutgers, UConn, Temple, (Navy)
USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, Boise State, SDSU, (Western team)

I liked this even better if there are nine conference games. One crossover (made for tv game each season) and you rotate the other schools. The crossover game could change each season as well depending on pre-season rankings. I feel this system protects all rivalry games, gives schools a chance to recruit in different parts of the country without breaking up the geography of the conference like the ACC and the Big Ten did.

I certainly wouldn't mind that alignment... Nevertheless, in a few years, I suspect that the 2nd group would be the most powerful in the conference. When you have all the Florida, Texas, and Western schools in one division, the talent disparity will organically favor that division.

Disagree.

While location can certainly be a factor in regards to recruiting...for every top local player that wants to 'stay home', there are probably 3 or 4 others that "want to leave town"....as many locals view their local college as "13th Grade" (i.e. where everyone from HS goes to.). Many with scholarship offers want to "go away to college"...as that scholarship offers open up a ton of possibilities that wouldn't have been possible before (i.e. the VERY high cost of out-of-state tuition/room/board at many Univ).

Big East Football has had a Florida Member since Day 1 (1991) but the last FL Champ for the conf was back in 2003, when Miami were "co-champions".

USF is located in FLA...yet teams like Louisville, Cincinnati and even UCONN have won multiple share of Big East titles while USF does not.

Just because Big East is adding new members in TX and FL...doesn't mean any of those teams will be "shoe-ins" for future titles.

When they are collectively in one division, it's a good bet that one of the members of that division will be the BE Champion. Especially when Boise State is also in that division.

CUSA had FOUR Texas teams in their conf....yet out of all 4 teams...they've only mustered 1 CUSA Championship COMBINED since the new conf was formed in 2005.

Meanwhile, Conf titles were won by teams in
Oklahoma
North Carolina (2)
Mississippi
and yes, even FL (2)

Bottom line...its silly to suggest that teams like UL, Cinci, UCONN, Rutgers or even Temple CAN'T win future Big East titles if they formed mostly their own division.

(09-11-2012 03:41 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 03:19 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 02:56 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 02:52 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 01:59 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  I always liked this setup

Cincinnati, Memphis, Louisville, Rutgers, UConn, Temple, (Navy)
USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, Boise State, SDSU, (Western team)

I liked this even better if there are nine conference games. One crossover (made for tv game each season) and you rotate the other schools. The crossover game could change each season as well depending on pre-season rankings. I feel this system protects all rivalry games, gives schools a chance to recruit in different parts of the country without breaking up the geography of the conference like the ACC and the Big Ten did.

I certainly wouldn't mind that alignment... Nevertheless, in a few years, I suspect that the 2nd group would be the most powerful in the conference. When you have all the Florida, Texas, and Western schools in one division, the talent disparity will organically favor that division.

Disagree.

While location can certainly be a factor in regards to recruiting...for every top local player that wants to 'stay home', there are probably 3 or 4 others that "want to leave town"....as many locals view their local college as "13th Grade" (i.e. where everyone from HS goes to.). Many with scholarship offers want to "go away to college"...as that scholarship offers open up a ton of possibilities that wouldn't have been possible before (i.e. the VERY high cost of out-of-state tuition/room/board at many Univ).

Big East Football has had a Florida Member since Day 1 (1991) but the last FL Champ for the conf was back in 2003, when Miami were "co-champions".

USF is located in FLA...yet teams like Louisville, Cincinnati and even UCONN have won multiple share of Big East titles while USF does not.

Just because Big East is adding new members in TX and FL...doesn't mean any of those teams will be "shoe-ins" for future titles.

When they are collectively in one division, it's a good bet that one of the members of that division will be the BE Champion. Especially when Boise State is also in that division.

CUSA had FOUR Texas teams in their conf....yet out of all 4 teams...they've only mustered 1 CUSA Championship COMBINED since the new conf was formed in 2005.

Meanwhile, Conf titles were won by teams in
Oklahoma
North Carolina (2)
Mississippi
and yes, even FL (2)

Bottom line...its silly to suggest that teams like UL, Cinci, UCONN, Rutgers or even Temple CAN'T win future Big East titles if they formed mostly their own division.

Yeah, I agree with you here. I really hope that the Big East powers that be understand this (but my gut feeling is that they won't and certain schools are going to be more concerned about getting a game in Florida or Texas every year than having divisions that make sense). To me, the health of this conference long-term is going to be based on establishing legit rivalries as opposed to looking and feeling like a hodge-podge. Geographic proximity where it makes sense is a part of that.

(09-10-2012 09:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-10-2012 09:13 PM)War Torn Ruston Wrote:  

(09-10-2012 09:11 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-10-2012 09:00 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  I hate the idea of non-geographic divisions, but if that is the way of things Rutgers had to play UConn and Tempe every year.

I like my zipper better:

Red:

Louisville
Memphis
Cincinnati
UCF
SMU
SDSU

Blue:

UConn
Rutgers
Temple
USF
Houston
Boise

You can mix and match the last 3 in each division, at will.

But what about your crossover games?

The obvious ones. Boise/SDSU, SMU/UH and USF/UCF. I just meant it doesn't matter much which one of each pair you put in which division. And with UL, UM and UC in the same division, I don't think it matters who you pair them up with between RU, TU and CT.

So why not put Memphis, Louisville, Cincy with Temple, Rutgers, Uconn in one division (Division A). This way UH-SMU, Boise-SDSU and UCF-USF can be in one division (Division B). When playiing the three cross over games each Division A team plays one of the paired Division B teams and therefore get to play in Florida, Texas and West Coast and all rivalries remain intact.

(09-11-2012 04:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 03:41 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 03:19 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 02:56 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 02:52 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  I certainly wouldn't mind that alignment... Nevertheless, in a few years, I suspect that the 2nd group would be the most powerful in the conference. When you have all the Florida, Texas, and Western schools in one division, the talent disparity will organically favor that division.

Disagree.

While location can certainly be a factor in regards to recruiting...for every top local player that wants to 'stay home', there are probably 3 or 4 others that "want to leave town"....as many locals view their local college as "13th Grade" (i.e. where everyone from HS goes to.). Many with scholarship offers want to "go away to college"...as that scholarship offers open up a ton of possibilities that wouldn't have been possible before (i.e. the VERY high cost of out-of-state tuition/room/board at many Univ).

Big East Football has had a Florida Member since Day 1 (1991) but the last FL Champ for the conf was back in 2003, when Miami were "co-champions".

USF is located in FLA...yet teams like Louisville, Cincinnati and even UCONN have won multiple share of Big East titles while USF does not.

Just because Big East is adding new members in TX and FL...doesn't mean any of those teams will be "shoe-ins" for future titles.

When they are collectively in one division, it's a good bet that one of the members of that division will be the BE Champion. Especially when Boise State is also in that division.

CUSA had FOUR Texas teams in their conf....yet out of all 4 teams...they've only mustered 1 CUSA Championship COMBINED since the new conf was formed in 2005.

Meanwhile, Conf titles were won by teams in
Oklahoma
North Carolina (2)
Mississippi
and yes, even FL (2)

Bottom line...its silly to suggest that teams like UL, Cinci, UCONN, Rutgers or even Temple CAN'T win future Big East titles if they formed mostly their own division.

Yeah, I agree with you here. I really hope that the Big East powers that be understand this (but my gut feeling is that they won't and certain schools are going to be more concerned about getting a game in Florida or Texas every year than having divisions that make sense). To me, the health of this conference long-term is going to be based on establishing legit rivalries as opposed to looking and feeling like a hodge-podge. Geographic proximity where it makes sense is a part of that.

Couldnt agree more Frank. Ive talked about this before. To me, there are three 3-team cores that need to stay together to promote future rivalries.

SDSU/Boise/BYU (other western team)

Rutgers/UConn/Temple (Navy could also be added here)

Mempshi/Louisville/Cinci


Those cores need to stay together. If you notice, theres only one way that makes sense to fit them into the same division,

East
Rutgers/UConn/Temple/Navy+Memphis/Lousiville/Cinci

West
Boise/SDSU/BYU+Hou/SMU+UCF/USF

Bearcatlaw is dead on target with his divisions. I cant imagine this is not the final set up. Anything else just seems contrived.