1. The divisional structure.

Let me first say that I think a 9th game will be added with the new contract. With this is mind, it's probably best to stick to 4 x 4 pods.

"Divisions" can be created and recreated every two years. This means there's never a need to play anything other than a conference championship game.

The strength of the 4 X 4 system as opposed to 3 divisions is that there's no incongruity in how rivals are determined, in how the differentiation in which divisions play 4 or 5 home games in a given season, or in creating a system of tiebreakers to come up with a wildcard team for a conference playoff.

2. Getting at least 2 squads into an 8 team CFP is much more feasible.

I think we'll end up adding one more game somehow. That extra game will either be an expanded CFP or an additional round of conference playoffs. I think the expanded CFP is the best course of action because limiting access to the CFP to 4 teams will put a premium on the difficulty of the path. A conference champion from a smaller league will have a better shot at making a field of 4 than a team that has to fight through an extra round of quality conference opponents to earn the opportunity.

Simply put, why should the SEC, or any other league capable of putting multiple teams in the field, restrict themselves? All conference championships are not equal and it stands to reason that not all conferences should have equal representation in the CFP. Expanding to 8 will come, I think, so it's better to get more teams in the field for the national championship. If you more narrowly define the requirements for a conference championship and only give 2 teams a shot at playing for it then there's room for forgiveness for a team's mistakes. That is, a team that didn't win it's division could easily qualify for an 8 team CFP.

3. The money is more efficiently distributed.

While it's true that a conference's size is limited only by its profitability, it's also true that the SEC is rapidly approaching the threshold of maximum profitability.

We could work with 18 or probably even 20, but as long as the next 2 are solid additions then we could probably make more money at 16 than by going beyond that.

4. Geography and travel

At 16, there's not much territory being added in all likelihood and the ability to remain geographically concise is still probably there.

5. Frequency of play

Maintaining frequency of play is simple. This means no one has to abandon any rivals for long periods of time.

A simple 3 + 3 + 3 format makes sure everyone plays everyone else regularly at least twice in a 6 year period.

-------------------

I think 16 is where we'll stop if we can get 2 quality additions with at least one of them being Texas or Oklahoma.

(07-22-2018 11:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  1. The divisional structure.

Let me first say that I think a 9th game will be added with the new contract. With this is mind, it's probably best to stick to 4 x 4 pods.

"Divisions" can be created and recreated every two years. This means there's never a need to play anything other than a conference championship game.

The strength of the 4 X 4 system as opposed to 3 divisions is that there's no incongruity in how rivals are determined, in how the differentiation in which divisions play 4 or 5 home games in a given season, or in creating a system of tiebreakers to come up with a wildcard team for a conference playoff.

2. Getting at least 2 squads into an 8 team CFP is much more feasible.

I think we'll end up adding one more game somehow. That extra game will either be an expanded CFP or an additional round of conference playoffs. I think the expanded CFP is the best course of action because limiting access to the CFP to 4 teams will put a premium on the difficulty of the path. A conference champion from a smaller league will have a better shot at making a field of 4 than a team that has to fight through an extra round of quality conference opponents to earn the opportunity.

Simply put, why should the SEC, or any other league capable of putting multiple teams in the field, restrict themselves? All conference championships are not equal and it stands to reason that not all conferences should have equal representation in the CFP. Expanding to 8 will come, I think, so it's better to get more teams in the field for the national championship. If you more narrowly define the requirements for a conference championship and only give 2 teams a shot at playing for it then there's room for forgiveness for a team's mistakes. That is, a team that didn't win it's division could easily qualify for an 8 team CFP.

3. The money is more efficiently distributed.

While it's true that a conference's size is limited only by its profitability, it's also true that the SEC is rapidly approaching the threshold of maximum profitability.

We could work with 18 or probably even 20, but as long as the next 2 are solid additions then we could probably make more money at 16 than by going beyond that.

4. Geography and travel

At 16, there's not much territory being added in all likelihood and the ability to remain geographically concise is still probably there.

5. Frequency of play

Maintaining frequency of play is simple. This means no one has to abandon any rivals for long periods of time.

A simple 3 + 3 + 3 format makes sure everyone plays everyone else regularly at least twice in a 6 year period.

-------------------

I think 16 is where we'll stop if we can get 2 quality additions with at least one of them being Texas or Oklahoma.

In general I agree, especially if we get Texas AND OK, but we might still go to 18 for UNC type school if the ACC ever becomes an option for expansion.

However, I hate the rotating division idea. It makes me think of the ACC's current system where I still have to look up who is in what division. It also makes me think of the WAC failure. 4/4 pods with semi-finals would be much better/keep teams in it longer/fan bases invested. Same with 3/6 and a wild card.

Tiebreakers should be relatively simple:
1) Head to head
2) Record versus common opponents
3) CFP Ranking
and the like would do it.

I could see an NFL type scheduling formula at 16 schools:
Play each opponent in your division (3)
Play one other division (4)
Play the teams in the other two divisions that finished in the same position (1st vs. 1st, 2nd vs 2nd, etc).

The "play one other division" means that the rotation would only take 3 years to play each team at least once/6 years home and home. Some interdivision rivalries would develop with the third criteria (ala Steelers/Chiefs right now).

In order for this to work, the divisions would have to make sense and keep some permanent rivalries, or TN/Alabama; Auburn/Georgia type games would have to be OOC.

And in a format with a semi-final, the conference keeps all the money, so the potential risk of losing an extra playoff team is mitigated.

Perhaps this was posted elsewhere earlier on this forum, but I don't look at all threads. Here's a Rutgers land view per BIG expansion possibilities. Of course there will be lists all over the place, some looking practical, others not. It is an interesting comparison to purported SEC candidates.

http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index....f_big.html

I’m a fan of no divisions. Maintain rivals. Play everyone in a reasonable time frame.

(07-23-2018 11:20 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 11:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  1. The divisional structure.

Let me first say that I think a 9th game will be added with the new contract. With this is mind, it's probably best to stick to 4 x 4 pods.

"Divisions" can be created and recreated every two years. This means there's never a need to play anything other than a conference championship game.

The strength of the 4 X 4 system as opposed to 3 divisions is that there's no incongruity in how rivals are determined, in how the differentiation in which divisions play 4 or 5 home games in a given season, or in creating a system of tiebreakers to come up with a wildcard team for a conference playoff.

2. Getting at least 2 squads into an 8 team CFP is much more feasible.

I think we'll end up adding one more game somehow. That extra game will either be an expanded CFP or an additional round of conference playoffs. I think the expanded CFP is the best course of action because limiting access to the CFP to 4 teams will put a premium on the difficulty of the path. A conference champion from a smaller league will have a better shot at making a field of 4 than a team that has to fight through an extra round of quality conference opponents to earn the opportunity.

Simply put, why should the SEC, or any other league capable of putting multiple teams in the field, restrict themselves? All conference championships are not equal and it stands to reason that not all conferences should have equal representation in the CFP. Expanding to 8 will come, I think, so it's better to get more teams in the field for the national championship. If you more narrowly define the requirements for a conference championship and only give 2 teams a shot at playing for it then there's room for forgiveness for a team's mistakes. That is, a team that didn't win it's division could easily qualify for an 8 team CFP.

3. The money is more efficiently distributed.

While it's true that a conference's size is limited only by its profitability, it's also true that the SEC is rapidly approaching the threshold of maximum profitability.

We could work with 18 or probably even 20, but as long as the next 2 are solid additions then we could probably make more money at 16 than by going beyond that.

4. Geography and travel

At 16, there's not much territory being added in all likelihood and the ability to remain geographically concise is still probably there.

5. Frequency of play

Maintaining frequency of play is simple. This means no one has to abandon any rivals for long periods of time.

A simple 3 + 3 + 3 format makes sure everyone plays everyone else regularly at least twice in a 6 year period.

-------------------

I think 16 is where we'll stop if we can get 2 quality additions with at least one of them being Texas or Oklahoma.

In general I agree, especially if we get Texas AND OK, but we might still go to 18 for UNC type school if the ACC ever becomes an option for expansion.

However, I hate the rotating division idea. It makes me think of the ACC's current system where I still have to look up who is in what division. It also makes me think of the WAC failure. 4/4 pods with semi-finals would be much better/keep teams in it longer/fan bases invested. Same with 3/6 and a wild card.

Tiebreakers should be relatively simple:
1) Head to head
2) Record versus common opponents
3) CFP Ranking
and the like would do it.

I could see an NFL type scheduling formula at 16 schools:
Play each opponent in your division (3)
Play one other division (4)
Play the teams in the other two divisions that finished in the same position (1st vs. 1st, 2nd vs 2nd, etc).

The "play one other division" means that the rotation would only take 3 years to play each team at least once/6 years home and home. Some interdivision rivalries would develop with the third criteria (ala Steelers/Chiefs right now).

In order for this to work, the divisions would have to make sense and keep some permanent rivalries, or TN/Alabama; Auburn/Georgia type games would have to be OOC.

And in a format with a semi-final, the conference keeps all the money, so the potential risk of losing an extra playoff team is mitigated.

I've long held that 16 members will be the outcome of most P5 conferences. I believe a 15 team model could work also if there was uniform acceptance, but that's more complicated with a 3 pod set-up. I also believe 16 members will be held as the maximum standard for awhile. It would have already happened if GoRs and extravagant exit fees were not put in place, along with some of the staggered periods of TV contract negotiations.

We assume the expansion additions will come from the Big12. Where they originate will have a direct bearing on divisional or subset membership. Permanent cross-overs can be worked-out. It was done before. A couple or so may gripe, but that comes with the territory.

My one reservation regarding playoffs concern extending seasons. Moving championships further into January begins to conflict with NFL interests. Starting seasons earlier in August, when the heat is still intense in the south, and most students haven't shown-up on campus, could be problematic at certain schools.

The OP is about the advantages of stopping at 16 conference members. I realize that in the discussion of the topic divisions are integral to the scheduling. But let's try not to turn the aim of this thread into a discussion only about divisions.

The merits of stopping at 16 seem to me to be these:
*You maintain a small enough conference where playing everyone is still easy to do if you group your main rivals into the same divisions and try to keep them regional.
* Your payouts are likely to be maximized provided great care goes into the selection of the 15th and 16th member institutions.
* It still leaves it possible to play an appropriate baseball and basketball schedule without having to leave out a number of schools during the regular season. Basketball is easier to accommodate than baseball.
* The fewer the total number of schools the less travel distances will be an encumbrance upon attendance.

(07-23-2018 01:03 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(07-23-2018 11:20 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 11:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  1. The divisional structure.

Let me first say that I think a 9th game will be added with the new contract. With this is mind, it's probably best to stick to 4 x 4 pods.

"Divisions" can be created and recreated every two years. This means there's never a need to play anything other than a conference championship game.

The strength of the 4 X 4 system as opposed to 3 divisions is that there's no incongruity in how rivals are determined, in how the differentiation in which divisions play 4 or 5 home games in a given season, or in creating a system of tiebreakers to come up with a wildcard team for a conference playoff.

2. Getting at least 2 squads into an 8 team CFP is much more feasible.

I think we'll end up adding one more game somehow. That extra game will either be an expanded CFP or an additional round of conference playoffs. I think the expanded CFP is the best course of action because limiting access to the CFP to 4 teams will put a premium on the difficulty of the path. A conference champion from a smaller league will have a better shot at making a field of 4 than a team that has to fight through an extra round of quality conference opponents to earn the opportunity.

Simply put, why should the SEC, or any other league capable of putting multiple teams in the field, restrict themselves? All conference championships are not equal and it stands to reason that not all conferences should have equal representation in the CFP. Expanding to 8 will come, I think, so it's better to get more teams in the field for the national championship. If you more narrowly define the requirements for a conference championship and only give 2 teams a shot at playing for it then there's room for forgiveness for a team's mistakes. That is, a team that didn't win it's division could easily qualify for an 8 team CFP.

3. The money is more efficiently distributed.

While it's true that a conference's size is limited only by its profitability, it's also true that the SEC is rapidly approaching the threshold of maximum profitability.

We could work with 18 or probably even 20, but as long as the next 2 are solid additions then we could probably make more money at 16 than by going beyond that.

4. Geography and travel

At 16, there's not much territory being added in all likelihood and the ability to remain geographically concise is still probably there.

5. Frequency of play

Maintaining frequency of play is simple. This means no one has to abandon any rivals for long periods of time.

A simple 3 + 3 + 3 format makes sure everyone plays everyone else regularly at least twice in a 6 year period.

-------------------

I think 16 is where we'll stop if we can get 2 quality additions with at least one of them being Texas or Oklahoma.

In general I agree, especially if we get Texas AND OK, but we might still go to 18 for UNC type school if the ACC ever becomes an option for expansion.

However, I hate the rotating division idea. It makes me think of the ACC's current system where I still have to look up who is in what division. It also makes me think of the WAC failure. 4/4 pods with semi-finals would be much better/keep teams in it longer/fan bases invested. Same with 3/6 and a wild card.

Tiebreakers should be relatively simple:
1) Head to head
2) Record versus common opponents
3) CFP Ranking
and the like would do it.

I could see an NFL type scheduling formula at 16 schools:
Play each opponent in your division (3)
Play one other division (4)
Play the teams in the other two divisions that finished in the same position (1st vs. 1st, 2nd vs 2nd, etc).

The "play one other division" means that the rotation would only take 3 years to play each team at least once/6 years home and home. Some interdivision rivalries would develop with the third criteria (ala Steelers/Chiefs right now).

In order for this to work, the divisions would have to make sense and keep some permanent rivalries, or TN/Alabama; Auburn/Georgia type games would have to be OOC.

And in a format with a semi-final, the conference keeps all the money, so the potential risk of losing an extra playoff team is mitigated.

I've long held that 16 members will be the outcome of most P5 conferences. I believe a 15 team model could work also if there was uniform acceptance, but that's more complicated with a 3 pod set-up. I also believe 16 members will be held as the maximum standard for awhile. It would have already happened if GoRs and extravagant exit fees were not put in place, along with some of the staggered periods of TV contract negotiations.

We assume the expansion additions will come from the Big12. Where they originate will have a direct bearing on divisional or subset membership. Permanent cross-overs can be worked-out. It was done before. A couple or so may gripe, but that comes with the territory.

My one reservation regarding playoffs concern extending seasons. Moving championships further into January begins to conflict with NFL interests. Starting seasons earlier in August, when the heat is still intense in the south, and most students haven't shown-up on campus, could be problematic at certain schools.

I don't think you'd have to move later into January.

Play the 1st round near Christmas and then a week later the semis can be on New Year's Day like it is now.

The 8 teams that enter the field would have almost as long a break as they do now. You could consolidate the bowl schedule a little more because there would be fewer major schools involved. If you start the "bowl" season off around Christmas then you could just make sure all the postseason games take place in that window.

I don't mind the idea of a 16 team conference as long as the conference game schedule moves to 9 games. I would love to see Texas and Oklahoma, or OU and Okie state in the SEC. Nine games is key to me though. It allows all members to play each other on a 4 year bases.