(08-03-2015 06:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The Networks want to build value at the mid range valued match ups. That means smaller divisions so that those games have more value, especially at the end of the season as each division goes into their divisional games to determine divisional winners. That will determine who takes part in those conference tournaments of the future.

There'll also be a race for spots in a top two playoff. At 12, there's a lot of permutations and combinations possible two weeks out.

At 14 or more, the pressure to be in divisions is greater.

(08-03-2015 07:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 06:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The Networks want to build value at the mid range valued match ups. That means smaller divisions so that those games have more value, especially at the end of the season as each division goes into their divisional games to determine divisional winners. That will determine who takes part in those conference tournaments of the future.

There'll also be a race for spots in a top two playoff. At 12, there's a lot of permutations and combinations possible two weeks out.

At 14 or more, the pressure to be in divisions is greater.

Correct, which is why the likes of The Big Ten and The SEC are not going to do any favors for those who are not yet at 14. The ACC wants deregulation of divisional rules but not the number of teams required rule. That is where folks get mistaken. They think that The ACC and the big 12 are lockstep together, they aren't.

The ACC has always had divisional problems and they know what they are getting in the future. It's not going to make for an easy solution to their divisional problems so they would prefer to not have to have divisions. They tried, they made the effort and they can show that to their boosters.

Crap. Back to agreeing again.

(08-03-2015 07:16 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  Crap. Back to agreeing again.

It's as inevitable as Conference Tournaments, Four Divisions and a CFP expansion to 6 or 8 teams after the conference realignment is finished.

(08-03-2015 07:18 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 07:16 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  Crap. Back to agreeing again.

It's as inevitable as Conference Tournaments, Four Divisions and a CFP expansion to 6 or 8 teams after the conference realignment is finished.

Agreeing is? That's no fun.

I still think the expansion to 8 will, in fact, be the CCGs. It's what brings the most value to both the conferences and the networks.

(08-03-2015 07:36 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I still think the expansion to 8 will, in fact, be the CCGs. It's what brings the most value to both the conferences and the networks.

My personal belief is that it will be conference tournaments and then a 6 team CFP. People seem to think that controversy is a bad thing. It may be to fans but it isn't to the Networks. Controversy means more viewership. More viewership means more money. More money means larger payouts to the Conferences. Conferences love controversy too.

Six teams means there is a controversy in regards to who gets the #1 and #2 spots because they get bye's. The Networks like the top teams/brands having a better shot at being in the later games.

It's all connected and it's all about Time and Pressure as well as having a little bit of patience. It's as inevitable as agreeing with me.

I don't believe there will be conference tournaments in football. It clashes with finals and will often produce bad matchups and bad champions. It also clashes with the professionalism issue. There's no reason for it but simply money. Expanded playoffs can be justified.

(08-03-2015 07:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  I don't believe there will be conference tournaments in football. It clashes with finals and will often produce bad matchups and bad champions. It also clashes with the professionalism issue. There's no reason for it but simply money. Expanded playoffs can be justified.

Finals can be worked around. I get the argument and it is not a bad one. Finals absolutely cannot be ignored but they can be worked around.

(08-03-2015 07:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 07:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 06:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The Networks want to build value at the mid range valued match ups. That means smaller divisions so that those games have more value, especially at the end of the season as each division goes into their divisional games to determine divisional winners. That will determine who takes part in those conference tournaments of the future.

There'll also be a race for spots in a top two playoff. At 12, there's a lot of permutations and combinations possible two weeks out.

At 14 or more, the pressure to be in divisions is greater.

Correct, which is why the likes of The Big Ten and The SEC are not going to do any favors for those who are not yet at 14. The ACC wants deregulation of divisional rules but not the number of teams required rule. That is where folks get mistaken. They think that The ACC and the big 12 are lockstep together, they aren't.

The ACC has always had divisional problems and they know what they are getting in the future. It's not going to make for an easy solution to their divisional problems so they would prefer to not have to have divisions. They tried, they made the effort and they can show that to their boosters.

If the ACC schools are saying they do not want divisions because they want to play everybody more often, they can accomplish the same thing as deregulation does just by going to non-permanent rotating divisions.

Nobody outside the ACC knows who is in each division anyway, so going to non-permanent divisions won't make that any worse.

(08-03-2015 08:13 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 07:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 07:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 06:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The Networks want to build value at the mid range valued match ups. That means smaller divisions so that those games have more value, especially at the end of the season as each division goes into their divisional games to determine divisional winners. That will determine who takes part in those conference tournaments of the future.

There'll also be a race for spots in a top two playoff. At 12, there's a lot of permutations and combinations possible two weeks out.

At 14 or more, the pressure to be in divisions is greater.

Correct, which is why the likes of The Big Ten and The SEC are not going to do any favors for those who are not yet at 14. The ACC wants deregulation of divisional rules but not the number of teams required rule. That is where folks get mistaken. They think that The ACC and the big 12 are lockstep together, they aren't.

The ACC has always had divisional problems and they know what they are getting in the future. It's not going to make for an easy solution to their divisional problems so they would prefer to not have to have divisions. They tried, they made the effort and they can show that to their boosters.

If the ACC schools are saying they do not want divisions because they want to play everybody more often, they can accomplish the same thing as deregulation does just by going to non-permanent rotating divisions.

Nobody outside the ACC knows who is in each division anyway, so going to non-permanent divisions won't make that any worse.

I have proven how a four division conference of sixteen teams achieves as good of scheduling as any other method, including No Divisions. Do I need to illustrate again?

(08-03-2015 08:18 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 08:13 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 07:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 07:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 06:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The Networks want to build value at the mid range valued match ups. That means smaller divisions so that those games have more value, especially at the end of the season as each division goes into their divisional games to determine divisional winners. That will determine who takes part in those conference tournaments of the future.

There'll also be a race for spots in a top two playoff. At 12, there's a lot of permutations and combinations possible two weeks out.

At 14 or more, the pressure to be in divisions is greater.

Correct, which is why the likes of The Big Ten and The SEC are not going to do any favors for those who are not yet at 14. The ACC wants deregulation of divisional rules but not the number of teams required rule. That is where folks get mistaken. They think that The ACC and the big 12 are lockstep together, they aren't.

The ACC has always had divisional problems and they know what they are getting in the future. It's not going to make for an easy solution to their divisional problems so they would prefer to not have to have divisions. They tried, they made the effort and they can show that to their boosters.

If the ACC schools are saying they do not want divisions because they want to play everybody more often, they can accomplish the same thing as deregulation does just by going to non-permanent rotating divisions.

Nobody outside the ACC knows who is in each division anyway, so going to non-permanent divisions won't make that any worse.

I have proven how a four division conference of sixteen teams achieves as good of scheduling as any other method, including No Divisions. Do I need to illustrate again?

Division A:
Team 1 (Plays Div + Teams 5, 6, 9, 10, 13 and 14)
Team 2 (Plays Div + Teams 5, 6, 9, 10, 13 and 14)
Team 3 (Plays Div + Teams 7, 8, 11, 12, 15 and 16)
Team 4 (Plays Div + Teams 7, 8, 11, 12, 15 and 16)

Division B:
Team 5 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 9, 10, 13 and 14)
Team 6 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 9, 10, 13 and 14)
Team 7 (Plays Div + Teams 3, 4, 11, 12, 15 and 16)
Team 8 (Plays Div + Teams 3, 4, 11, 12, 15 and 16)

Division C:
Team 9 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 5, 6, 13 and 14)
Team 10 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 5, 6, 13 and 14)
Team 11 (Plays Div = Teams 3, 4, 7, 8, 15 and 16)
Team 12 (Plays Div = Teams 3, 4, 7, 8, 15 and 16)

Division D:
Team 13 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10)
Team 14 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10)
Team 15 (Plays div + Teams 3, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 12)
Team 16 (Plays div + Teams 3, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 12)

It's very easy to manage.

(08-03-2015 08:42 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 08:18 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 08:13 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 07:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 07:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  There'll also be a race for spots in a top two playoff. At 12, there's a lot of permutations and combinations possible two weeks out.

At 14 or more, the pressure to be in divisions is greater.

Correct, which is why the likes of The Big Ten and The SEC are not going to do any favors for those who are not yet at 14. The ACC wants deregulation of divisional rules but not the number of teams required rule. That is where folks get mistaken. They think that The ACC and the big 12 are lockstep together, they aren't.

The ACC has always had divisional problems and they know what they are getting in the future. It's not going to make for an easy solution to their divisional problems so they would prefer to not have to have divisions. They tried, they made the effort and they can show that to their boosters.

If the ACC schools are saying they do not want divisions because they want to play everybody more often, they can accomplish the same thing as deregulation does just by going to non-permanent rotating divisions.

Nobody outside the ACC knows who is in each division anyway, so going to non-permanent divisions won't make that any worse.

I have proven how a four division conference of sixteen teams achieves as good of scheduling as any other method, including No Divisions. Do I need to illustrate again?

Division A:
Team 1 (Plays Div + Teams 5, 6, 9, 10, 13 and 14)
Team 2 (Plays Div + Teams 5, 6, 9, 10, 13 and 14)
Team 3 (Plays Div + Teams 7, 8, 11, 12, 15 and 16)
Team 4 (Plays Div + Teams 7, 8, 11, 12, 15 and 16)

Division B:
Team 5 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 9, 10, 13 and 14)
Team 6 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 9, 10, 13 and 14)
Team 7 (Plays Div + Teams 3, 4, 11, 12, 15 and 16)
Team 8 (Plays Div + Teams 3, 4, 11, 12, 15 and 16)

Division C:
Team 9 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 5, 6, 13 and 14)
Team 10 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 5, 6, 13 and 14)
Team 11 (Plays Div = Teams 3, 4, 7, 8, 15 and 16)
Team 12 (Plays Div = Teams 3, 4, 7, 8, 15 and 16)

Division D:
Team 13 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10)
Team 14 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10)
Team 15 (Plays div + Teams 3, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 12)
Team 16 (Plays div + Teams 3, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 12)

It's very easy to manage.

*** **** It! Now I have to give you Rep for doing the work for me.

It is an immediate creation of three strong rivalries, even stronger than whatever rivalry would have existed before. Everyone plays everyone in a two year period. You mathematically cannot beat that with any set up. You can only match it with a no division set up but the Networks prefer divisions.

(08-03-2015 08:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 08:42 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 08:18 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 08:13 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 07:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Correct, which is why the likes of The Big Ten and The SEC are not going to do any favors for those who are not yet at 14. The ACC wants deregulation of divisional rules but not the number of teams required rule. That is where folks get mistaken. They think that The ACC and the big 12 are lockstep together, they aren't.

The ACC has always had divisional problems and they know what they are getting in the future. It's not going to make for an easy solution to their divisional problems so they would prefer to not have to have divisions. They tried, they made the effort and they can show that to their boosters.

If the ACC schools are saying they do not want divisions because they want to play everybody more often, they can accomplish the same thing as deregulation does just by going to non-permanent rotating divisions.

Nobody outside the ACC knows who is in each division anyway, so going to non-permanent divisions won't make that any worse.

I have proven how a four division conference of sixteen teams achieves as good of scheduling as any other method, including No Divisions. Do I need to illustrate again?

Division A:
Team 1 (Plays Div + Teams 5, 6, 9, 10, 13 and 14)
Team 2 (Plays Div + Teams 5, 6, 9, 10, 13 and 14)
Team 3 (Plays Div + Teams 7, 8, 11, 12, 15 and 16)
Team 4 (Plays Div + Teams 7, 8, 11, 12, 15 and 16)

Division B:
Team 5 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 9, 10, 13 and 14)
Team 6 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 9, 10, 13 and 14)
Team 7 (Plays Div + Teams 3, 4, 11, 12, 15 and 16)
Team 8 (Plays Div + Teams 3, 4, 11, 12, 15 and 16)

Division C:
Team 9 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 5, 6, 13 and 14)
Team 10 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 5, 6, 13 and 14)
Team 11 (Plays Div = Teams 3, 4, 7, 8, 15 and 16)
Team 12 (Plays Div = Teams 3, 4, 7, 8, 15 and 16)

Division D:
Team 13 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10)
Team 14 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10)
Team 15 (Plays div + Teams 3, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 12)
Team 16 (Plays div + Teams 3, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 12)

It's very easy to manage.

*** **** It! Now I have to give you Rep for doing the work for me.

It is an immediate creation of three strong rivalries, even stronger than whatever rivalry would have existed before. Everyone plays everyone in a two year period. You mathematically cannot beat that with any set up. You can only match it with a no division set up but the Networks prefer divisions.

I'm 100% for this. It's the best all around scheduling option for both creating regional rivalries and Conference cohesion. It's fair to all and helps in promoting all members of the conference.

It's also a 4 year cycle. Every 4 years, you've played a Home and Home with every member of the conference.

(08-03-2015 08:57 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 08:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 08:42 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 08:18 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 08:13 PM)goofus Wrote:  If the ACC schools are saying they do not want divisions because they want to play everybody more often, they can accomplish the same thing as deregulation does just by going to non-permanent rotating divisions.

Nobody outside the ACC knows who is in each division anyway, so going to non-permanent divisions won't make that any worse.

I have proven how a four division conference of sixteen teams achieves as good of scheduling as any other method, including No Divisions. Do I need to illustrate again?

Division A:
Team 1 (Plays Div + Teams 5, 6, 9, 10, 13 and 14)
Team 2 (Plays Div + Teams 5, 6, 9, 10, 13 and 14)
Team 3 (Plays Div + Teams 7, 8, 11, 12, 15 and 16)
Team 4 (Plays Div + Teams 7, 8, 11, 12, 15 and 16)

Division B:
Team 5 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 9, 10, 13 and 14)
Team 6 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 9, 10, 13 and 14)
Team 7 (Plays Div + Teams 3, 4, 11, 12, 15 and 16)
Team 8 (Plays Div + Teams 3, 4, 11, 12, 15 and 16)

Division C:
Team 9 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 5, 6, 13 and 14)
Team 10 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 5, 6, 13 and 14)
Team 11 (Plays Div = Teams 3, 4, 7, 8, 15 and 16)
Team 12 (Plays Div = Teams 3, 4, 7, 8, 15 and 16)

Division D:
Team 13 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10)
Team 14 (Plays Div + Teams 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10)
Team 15 (Plays div + Teams 3, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 12)
Team 16 (Plays div + Teams 3, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 12)

It's very easy to manage.

*** **** It! Now I have to give you Rep for doing the work for me.

It is an immediate creation of three strong rivalries, even stronger than whatever rivalry would have existed before. Everyone plays everyone in a two year period. You mathematically cannot beat that with any set up. You can only match it with a no division set up but the Networks prefer divisions.

I'm 100% for this. It's the best all around scheduling option for both creating regional rivalries and Conference cohesion. It's fair to all and helps in promoting all members of the conference.

It's also a 4 year cycle. Every 4 years, you've played a Home and Home with every member of the conference.

Yes, thus four year seniors are rewarded with experiencing every single atmosphere within the conference.

H1, I shared the pod format on landthieves so they can grasp how the pods could work.

Very exciting stuff. Let's expand to 16 with Oklahoma and Kansas and get playing some football.

(08-03-2015 09:11 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  H1, I shared the pod format on landthieves so they can grasp how the pods could work.

Very exciting stuff. Let's expand to 16 with Oklahoma and Kansas and get playing some football.

You told them I posted it?

I took a look. That is hilarious, the Old Clown guy thinks you are me? Seriously though, you say you had to give the source credit so give the source credit. He deserves it for posting it first. Obviously I am not the only person that see's the immense value in the concept.

What's 1910 mean?

(08-03-2015 08:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It is an immediate creation of three strong rivalries, even stronger than whatever rivalry would have existed before. Everyone plays everyone in a two year period. You mathematically cannot beat that with any set up. You can only match it with a no division set up but the Networks prefer divisions.

The networks prefer divisions with each champion going into a playoff along with wild cards ... but with a single CCG, that undermines the media value of having more than a pair of divisions.

(08-03-2015 09:34 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  What's 1910 mean?

1-9-1-0, 1 OOC P5 game, 9 conference games, 1 CCG, 0 FCS games.