I saw this posted in the ACC board and I wanted to see what the thoughts would be hear...
Scrapping CFB Divisions
From an SEC perspective, the divisional problems aren't nearly as difficult as the challenges faced by the ACC. Thus going to such lengths as suggested by the author aren't really necessary. Besides, divisions have proven to enhance the regular season and minimizes that potential for repeat match-ups in the SEC Championship Game. IMO, the only issues that the SEC has are.
1. The UT/Bama and UGA/AU permanent games
2. Mizzou in the SEC East
The second isn't that much of an issue as it is essentially a stop-gap measure until the SEC determines with or not to expand again. Regardless of which side of the conference a team is added, Mizzou will find itself out of the East. The permanent crossovers can be scrapped for everyone else save those 4 teams.
Its not a bad idea and I think a lot of teams would agree with it if you had for example 3-4 protected games for rivalries and geography and then just rotated the rest to get more variety.
I wouldn't mind having LSU/Arky/Ole Miss/Auburn every year and rotating through the rest in 3/4 years
You play the regional/rivalry games that matter most to you and most of your students/players will get to see at least one game vs every member during their time on campus.
(01-17-2014 01:47 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]Its not a bad idea and I think a lot of teams would agree with it if you had for example 3-4 protected games for rivalries and geography and then just rotated the rest to get more variety.
I wouldn't mind having LSU/Arky/Ole Miss/Auburn every year and rotating through the rest in 3/4 years
You play the regional/rivalry games that matter most to you and most of your students/players will get to see at least one game vs every member during their time on campus.
It is not a situation easily remedied while maintaining competitive balance. The SEC's landscape make it so that many of the founding schools consider each other as "critical" rivals. Kentucky has been the only real outlier. Take Lexington, KY, out of the equation, and the SEC campuses basically formed a circle of the Deep South with the Alabama schools in the middle. Everyone could get to each other for a weekend road trip, and they did.
Let me channel my grandfather for a moment... "What else were our relatively poor families going to do for an affordable vacation when taking a week off of work or jumping on a plane were not practical? A rolled down window in a moving car was air conditioning (I'm 30 and my parents first car did not have A/C; even I remember)."
If you ask any of the original 10 members of the conference, I bet all of them except Kentucky have at least 5 schools that they feel they must play every year for all to be right in the world. I wish I had a perfect formula to suggest, but every one I have tried has a least one critical hole in it, and it usually involves Auburn or Tennessee.
It is not surprising that this is the direction some school's would wish to go. The constriction will come when the Networks get involved and start offering up the money for them to go in a different direction.
The advantage of being is old is that you recognize old failed strategies. Prior to 1992 the SEC used this format. We didn't have a round robin and usually only played 7 conference games. Each school had 5 permanent rivals and rotated the rest, although more infrequently that you might think. The problem is perfectly illustrated by those chosen by Alabama to permanent rivals and those chosen by Auburn.
Alabama: Tennessee, Mississippi State, L.S.U., Auburn, Vanderbilt
Auburn: Tennessee, Mississippi State, Alabama, Florida, Georgia
To decide the conference championship it was the team with the best conference record. In the event of a tie it was decided by head competition. In the event of having not played it was decided by record against common opponents and after that by the best overall record.
There were many years that Auburn finished 1 game behind Alabama, and some of those where they finished 1 game behind but had beaten Alabama. Getting to play Vanderbilt and Mississippi State and L.S.U. before they were great (still good but a long way from great) meant that while Auburn played Florida, Georgia, and Alabama to finish out the season every year, Alabama had annual games against 2 lesser opponents prior to playing Auburn. All things being fairly equal on any given year that gave the Tide a leg up not only on Auburn, but on many other conference teams as well. Tennessee's advantage was that they played Alabama, Auburn, ,Georgia, Vanderbilt and Kentucky. So annually of the top teams Tennesse and Alabama claimed two each of the weaker teams to play. Most of the others had 4 conference games against schools at least good enough to beat them. Back in those days Vanderbilt was a guaranteed win. Kentucky and Mississippi State likely wins. Ole Miss, Florida, and L.S.U. a possible loss. Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and Auburn were the ones most likely to make a run and pretty much in that order. And, because Georgia and Alabama had once had a major disagreement they seldom played even in the rotation.
Everybody hated the system because it was inherently biased. So I say we've been there, tried it, it failed miserably due to structural inequities in the scheduling and the 4 pod rotation guarantees that you have to play everyone outside of your tiny division every three years and that every one in your division plays the same core of 7 conference games each year and that's why that system will be superior (not perfect but superior).
Don't like the format. I prefer divisions. The first thing the SEC needs to do is expand. We need two more members to balance the schedule. The second thing is swap Alabama&Auburn with Mizzou and Vandy. This solves a lot of the rivalry game problems.
(01-18-2014 11:30 PM)hawghiggs Wrote: [ -> ]Don't like the format. I prefer divisions. The first thing the SEC needs to do is expand. We need two more members to balance the schedule. The second thing is swap Alabama&Auburn with Mizzou and Vandy. This solves a lot of the rivalry game problems.
I agree with you HH. It would solve many problems. Then the only permanent crossover rival that Vandy would need would be Tennessee. Everyone else for the the most part would be closer for them to play. Of course this would depend to some extent upon which teams were the additions and where they were located. If we add two to the West it could change things a bit.
(01-18-2014 06:13 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]The advantage of being is old is that you recognize old failed strategies. Prior to 1992 the SEC used this format. We didn't have a round robin and usually only played 7 conference games. Each school had 5 permanent rivals and rotated the rest, although more infrequently that you might think. The problem is perfectly illustrated by those chosen by Alabama to permanent rivals and those chosen by Auburn.
Alabama: Tennessee, Mississippi State, L.S.U., Auburn, Vanderbilt
Auburn: Tennessee, Mississippi State, Alabama, Florida, Georgia
To decide the conference championship it was the team with the best conference record. In the event of a tie it was decided by head competition. In the event of having not played it was decided by record against common opponents and after that by the best overall record.
There were many years that Auburn finished 1 game behind Alabama, and some of those where they finished 1 game behind but had beaten Alabama. Getting to play Vanderbilt and Mississippi State and L.S.U. before they were great (still good but a long way from great) meant that while Auburn played Florida, Georgia, and Alabama to finish out the season every year, Alabama had annual games against 2 lesser opponents prior to playing Auburn. All things being fairly equal on any given year that gave the Tide a leg up not only on Auburn, but on many other conference teams as well. Tennessee's advantage was that they played Alabama, Auburn, ,Georgia, Vanderbilt and Kentucky. So annually of the top teams Tennesse and Alabama claimed two each of the weaker teams to play. Most of the others had 4 conference games against schools at least good enough to beat them. Back in those days Vanderbilt was a guaranteed win. Kentucky and Mississippi State likely wins. Ole Miss, Florida, and L.S.U. a possible loss. Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and Auburn were the ones most likely to make a run and pretty much in that order. And, because Georgia and Alabama had once had a major disagreement they seldom played even in the rotation.
Everybody hated the system because it was inherently biased. So I say we've been there, tried it, it failed miserably due to structural inequities in the scheduling and the 4 pod rotation guarantees that you have to play everyone outside of your tiny division every three years and that every one in your division plays the same core of 7 conference games each year and that's why that system will be superior (not perfect but superior).
Failed?
That system invented the "mystique" that is SEC football.
While I can see the disdain that an Auburn fan might have for the way things were, that old system made football superstars out of Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and LSU.
When you are trying to build a brand, an inherently biased system is the way to go, it also makes much better "must see TV" out of your own market area (it might sell a few more network subscriptions, or a pay-per-view audience).
If you are scheduling for television (which ESPN/FOX want) you have to provide the match-ups that will sell.....it's basic marketing.
Why would Swofford want to introduce this system to the ACC? Because even though it wasn't fair, was hated by some, it worked to build SEC football into what it is today. The ACC needs that to develop into an attractive alternative football league to the SEC (at the expense of the PAC and the B1G), and the SEC needs it to provide marketable match-ups for the SEC network.
(01-19-2014 08:09 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (01-18-2014 06:13 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]The advantage of being is old is that you recognize old failed strategies. Prior to 1992 the SEC used this format. We didn't have a round robin and usually only played 7 conference games. Each school had 5 permanent rivals and rotated the rest, although more infrequently that you might think. The problem is perfectly illustrated by those chosen by Alabama to permanent rivals and those chosen by Auburn.
Alabama: Tennessee, Mississippi State, L.S.U., Auburn, Vanderbilt
Auburn: Tennessee, Mississippi State, Alabama, Florida, Georgia
To decide the conference championship it was the team with the best conference record. In the event of a tie it was decided by head competition. In the event of having not played it was decided by record against common opponents and after that by the best overall record.
There were many years that Auburn finished 1 game behind Alabama, and some of those where they finished 1 game behind but had beaten Alabama. Getting to play Vanderbilt and Mississippi State and L.S.U. before they were great (still good but a long way from great) meant that while Auburn played Florida, Georgia, and Alabama to finish out the season every year, Alabama had annual games against 2 lesser opponents prior to playing Auburn. All things being fairly equal on any given year that gave the Tide a leg up not only on Auburn, but on many other conference teams as well. Tennessee's advantage was that they played Alabama, Auburn, ,Georgia, Vanderbilt and Kentucky. So annually of the top teams Tennesse and Alabama claimed two each of the weaker teams to play. Most of the others had 4 conference games against schools at least good enough to beat them. Back in those days Vanderbilt was a guaranteed win. Kentucky and Mississippi State likely wins. Ole Miss, Florida, and L.S.U. a possible loss. Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and Auburn were the ones most likely to make a run and pretty much in that order. And, because Georgia and Alabama had once had a major disagreement they seldom played even in the rotation.
Everybody hated the system because it was inherently biased. So I say we've been there, tried it, it failed miserably due to structural inequities in the scheduling and the 4 pod rotation guarantees that you have to play everyone outside of your tiny division every three years and that every one in your division plays the same core of 7 conference games each year and that's why that system will be superior (not perfect but superior).
Failed?
That system invented the "mystique" that is SEC football.
While I can see the disdain that an Auburn fan might have for the way things were, that old system made football superstars out of Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and LSU.
When you are trying to build a brand, an inherently biased system is the way to go, it also makes much better "must see TV" out of your own market area (it might sell a few more network subscriptions, or a pay-per-view audience).
If you are scheduling for television (which ESPN/FOX want) you have to provide the match-ups that will sell.....it's basic marketing.
Why would Swofford want to introduce this system to the ACC? Because even though it wasn't fair, was hated by some, it worked to build SEC football into what it is today. The ACC needs that to develop into an attractive alternative football league to the SEC (at the expense of the PAC and the B1G), and the SEC needs it to provide marketable match-ups for the SEC network.
The only thing truly needed by both conferences is to group rivals into half divisions of 4 and rotate the half divisions. Since most rivals are geographically close it works out quite well. The most sought after must see brand building television are rivalry games. The second is games among ranked opponents within the conference, and the third are championship round games. Those are the ones that the public clamors to see and those are the ones that people remember.
The other approach is with 4 half divisions with a 9 game conference schedule. You play the three in your division, three from another division, and have one permanent rival in the other 3 divisions. That way 6 of your games are set every year and you rotate through the 9 every three years. Your merely deluding yourself that an outdated system is the way to build the ACC brand. You have a fragile coalition to begin with because there are too many cultures within the ACC to bring cohesion to such a far flung grouping of schools. If there was ever a conference that needed 4 half divisions it's the ACC. Let's say you add another Northern school. Your groupings could easily be:
Boston College, Syracuse, Cincinnati/
Connecticut, N.D.
Louisville,
Cincinnati/Connecticut, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest
Georgia Tech, F.S.U., Clemson, Miami
Now you have annual games between rivals where there is cultural cohesion. Either of the above formats works just fine to solve your issues and build your brands.
(01-19-2014 08:09 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (01-18-2014 06:13 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]The advantage of being is old is that you recognize old failed strategies. Prior to 1992 the SEC used this format. We didn't have a round robin and usually only played 7 conference games. Each school had 5 permanent rivals and rotated the rest, although more infrequently that you might think. The problem is perfectly illustrated by those chosen by Alabama to permanent rivals and those chosen by Auburn.
Alabama: Tennessee, Mississippi State, L.S.U., Auburn, Vanderbilt
Auburn: Tennessee, Mississippi State, Alabama, Florida, Georgia
To decide the conference championship it was the team with the best conference record. In the event of a tie it was decided by head competition. In the event of having not played it was decided by record against common opponents and after that by the best overall record.
There were many years that Auburn finished 1 game behind Alabama, and some of those where they finished 1 game behind but had beaten Alabama. Getting to play Vanderbilt and Mississippi State and L.S.U. before they were great (still good but a long way from great) meant that while Auburn played Florida, Georgia, and Alabama to finish out the season every year, Alabama had annual games against 2 lesser opponents prior to playing Auburn. All things being fairly equal on any given year that gave the Tide a leg up not only on Auburn, but on many other conference teams as well. Tennessee's advantage was that they played Alabama, Auburn, ,Georgia, Vanderbilt and Kentucky. So annually of the top teams Tennesse and Alabama claimed two each of the weaker teams to play. Most of the others had 4 conference games against schools at least good enough to beat them. Back in those days Vanderbilt was a guaranteed win. Kentucky and Mississippi State likely wins. Ole Miss, Florida, and L.S.U. a possible loss. Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and Auburn were the ones most likely to make a run and pretty much in that order. And, because Georgia and Alabama had once had a major disagreement they seldom played even in the rotation.
Everybody hated the system because it was inherently biased. So I say we've been there, tried it, it failed miserably due to structural inequities in the scheduling and the 4 pod rotation guarantees that you have to play everyone outside of your tiny division every three years and that every one in your division plays the same core of 7 conference games each year and that's why that system will be superior (not perfect but superior).
Failed?
That system invented the "mystique" that is SEC football.
While I can see the disdain that an Auburn fan might have for the way things were, that old system made football superstars out of Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and LSU.
When you are trying to build a brand, an inherently biased system is the way to go, it also makes much better "must see TV" out of your own market area (it might sell a few more network subscriptions, or a pay-per-view audience).
If you are scheduling for television (which ESPN/FOX want) you have to provide the match-ups that will sell.....it's basic marketing.
Why would Swofford want to introduce this system to the ACC? Because even though it wasn't fair, was hated by some, it worked to build SEC football into what it is today. The ACC needs that to develop into an attractive alternative football league to the SEC (at the expense of the PAC and the B1G), and the SEC needs it to provide marketable match-ups for the SEC network.
The fact that you think divisions will not allow the AC to be that "alternative to the SEC at the cost of the PAC and Big Ten" just goes to show that the conference is weak and only has a small number of strong selling teams.
The ACC is not going to be able to get the likes of the SEC, Big Ten and PAC to go along with the no division rule. It is not going to happen and I doubt that the Networks want it either.
Sorry, but you guys dug your own grave if this is how you truly see it. Geographic small divisions absolutely makes sense but let me guess....you don't like seeing the likes of Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville making up a division?
Too bad I guess.
the most interesting rule the NCAA could make is to allow a 16 team conference to divide into 4 divisions and have a conference tournament.
(01-19-2014 09:09 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-19-2014 08:09 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (01-18-2014 06:13 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]The advantage of being is old is that you recognize old failed strategies. Prior to 1992 the SEC used this format. We didn't have a round robin and usually only played 7 conference games. Each school had 5 permanent rivals and rotated the rest, although more infrequently that you might think. The problem is perfectly illustrated by those chosen by Alabama to permanent rivals and those chosen by Auburn.
Alabama: Tennessee, Mississippi State, L.S.U., Auburn, Vanderbilt
Auburn: Tennessee, Mississippi State, Alabama, Florida, Georgia
To decide the conference championship it was the team with the best conference record. In the event of a tie it was decided by head competition. In the event of having not played it was decided by record against common opponents and after that by the best overall record.
There were many years that Auburn finished 1 game behind Alabama, and some of those where they finished 1 game behind but had beaten Alabama. Getting to play Vanderbilt and Mississippi State and L.S.U. before they were great (still good but a long way from great) meant that while Auburn played Florida, Georgia, and Alabama to finish out the season every year, Alabama had annual games against 2 lesser opponents prior to playing Auburn. All things being fairly equal on any given year that gave the Tide a leg up not only on Auburn, but on many other conference teams as well. Tennessee's advantage was that they played Alabama, Auburn, ,Georgia, Vanderbilt and Kentucky. So annually of the top teams Tennesse and Alabama claimed two each of the weaker teams to play. Most of the others had 4 conference games against schools at least good enough to beat them. Back in those days Vanderbilt was a guaranteed win. Kentucky and Mississippi State likely wins. Ole Miss, Florida, and L.S.U. a possible loss. Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and Auburn were the ones most likely to make a run and pretty much in that order. And, because Georgia and Alabama had once had a major disagreement they seldom played even in the rotation.
Everybody hated the system because it was inherently biased. So I say we've been there, tried it, it failed miserably due to structural inequities in the scheduling and the 4 pod rotation guarantees that you have to play everyone outside of your tiny division every three years and that every one in your division plays the same core of 7 conference games each year and that's why that system will be superior (not perfect but superior).
Failed?
That system invented the "mystique" that is SEC football.
While I can see the disdain that an Auburn fan might have for the way things were, that old system made football superstars out of Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and LSU.
When you are trying to build a brand, an inherently biased system is the way to go, it also makes much better "must see TV" out of your own market area (it might sell a few more network subscriptions, or a pay-per-view audience).
If you are scheduling for television (which ESPN/FOX want) you have to provide the match-ups that will sell.....it's basic marketing.
Why would Swofford want to introduce this system to the ACC? Because even though it wasn't fair, was hated by some, it worked to build SEC football into what it is today. The ACC needs that to develop into an attractive alternative football league to the SEC (at the expense of the PAC and the B1G), and the SEC needs it to provide marketable match-ups for the SEC network.
The only thing truly needed by both conferences is to group rivals into half divisions of 4 and rotate the half divisions. Since most rivals are geographically close it works out quite well. The most sought after must see brand building television are rivalry games. The second is games among ranked opponents within the conference, and the third are championship round games. Those are the ones that the public clamors to see and those are the ones that people remember.
The other approach is with 4 half divisions with a 9 game conference schedule. You play the three in your division, three from another division, and have one permanent rival in the other 3 divisions. That way 6 of your games are set every year and you rotate through the 9 every three years. Your merely deluding yourself that an outdated system is the way to build the ACC brand. You have a fragile coalition to begin with because there are too many cultures within the ACC to bring cohesion to such a far flung grouping of schools. If there was ever a conference that needed 4 half divisions it's the ACC. Let's say you add another Northern school. Your groupings could easily be:
Boston College, Syracuse, Cincinnati/Connecticut, N.D.
Louisville, Cincinnati/Connecticut, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest
Georgia Tech, F.S.U., Clemson, Miami
Now you have annual games between rivals where there is cultural cohesion. Either of the above formats works just fine to solve your issues and build your brands.
In a conference with only 14 members, this is how it would work.
Each conference member would have three play every year rivals. In an 8 game schedule, then you would play five of the ramaining schools one year and the other 5 the next. This way you could play every other team in the conference at least once every other year (every school as a home game at least once every 4 years).
If there is to be no movement for several years, this is a good formula until the conferences can move to 16. It is much better than only playing a school in another division every decade or so.
(01-19-2014 12:35 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]the most interesting rule the NCAA could make is to allow a 16 team conference to divide into 4 divisions and have a conference tournament.
Absolutely and the Networks know it. They are being pressured by all the public talk about creating a rule to remove the need for having divisions.
(01-19-2014 10:50 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ] (01-19-2014 08:09 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (01-18-2014 06:13 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]The advantage of being is old is that you recognize old failed strategies. Prior to 1992 the SEC used this format. We didn't have a round robin and usually only played 7 conference games. Each school had 5 permanent rivals and rotated the rest, although more infrequently that you might think. The problem is perfectly illustrated by those chosen by Alabama to permanent rivals and those chosen by Auburn.
Alabama: Tennessee, Mississippi State, L.S.U., Auburn, Vanderbilt
Auburn: Tennessee, Mississippi State, Alabama, Florida, Georgia
To decide the conference championship it was the team with the best conference record. In the event of a tie it was decided by head competition. In the event of having not played it was decided by record against common opponents and after that by the best overall record.
There were many years that Auburn finished 1 game behind Alabama, and some of those where they finished 1 game behind but had beaten Alabama. Getting to play Vanderbilt and Mississippi State and L.S.U. before they were great (still good but a long way from great) meant that while Auburn played Florida, Georgia, and Alabama to finish out the season every year, Alabama had annual games against 2 lesser opponents prior to playing Auburn. All things being fairly equal on any given year that gave the Tide a leg up not only on Auburn, but on many other conference teams as well. Tennessee's advantage was that they played Alabama, Auburn, ,Georgia, Vanderbilt and Kentucky. So annually of the top teams Tennesse and Alabama claimed two each of the weaker teams to play. Most of the others had 4 conference games against schools at least good enough to beat them. Back in those days Vanderbilt was a guaranteed win. Kentucky and Mississippi State likely wins. Ole Miss, Florida, and L.S.U. a possible loss. Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and Auburn were the ones most likely to make a run and pretty much in that order. And, because Georgia and Alabama had once had a major disagreement they seldom played even in the rotation.
Everybody hated the system because it was inherently biased. So I say we've been there, tried it, it failed miserably due to structural inequities in the scheduling and the 4 pod rotation guarantees that you have to play everyone outside of your tiny division every three years and that every one in your division plays the same core of 7 conference games each year and that's why that system will be superior (not perfect but superior).
Failed?
That system invented the "mystique" that is SEC football.
While I can see the disdain that an Auburn fan might have for the way things were, that old system made football superstars out of Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and LSU.
When you are trying to build a brand, an inherently biased system is the way to go, it also makes much better "must see TV" out of your own market area (it might sell a few more network subscriptions, or a pay-per-view audience).
If you are scheduling for television (which ESPN/FOX want) you have to provide the match-ups that will sell.....it's basic marketing.
Why would Swofford want to introduce this system to the ACC? Because even though it wasn't fair, was hated by some, it worked to build SEC football into what it is today. The ACC needs that to develop into an attractive alternative football league to the SEC (at the expense of the PAC and the B1G), and the SEC needs it to provide marketable match-ups for the SEC network.
The fact that you think divisions will not allow the AC to be that "alternative to the SEC at the cost of the PAC and Big Ten" just goes to show that the conference is weak and only has a small number of strong selling teams.
The ACC is not going to be able to get the likes of the SEC, Big Ten and PAC to go along with the no division rule. It is not going to happen and I doubt that the Networks want it either.
Sorry, but you guys dug your own grave if this is how you truly see it. Geographic small divisions absolutely makes sense but let me guess....you don't like seeing the likes of Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville making up a division?
Too bad I guess.
What I see is that at this point in time there are 3 conferences that have 14 members (not 16), and there is a formula on the table that would allow schools to play each other more frequently while protecting long standing rivalries.
This plan allows ESPN to plan, pick and choose ACC inventory to combat CBS in the Saturday afternoon and give them better SEC inventory to broadcast on Saturday night. Make no mistake, this proposal benefits ESPN as much or more as it does the ACC, SEC or B1G. The main help to the conferences is that it provides a temporary fix for the scheduling delima of having 14 teams.
Everything that happens from this point forward will have to have previous approval of the people paying the bills. It is in ESPN's best interest to have the best SEC and ACC inventory available in case they are not successful in securing a new contract with the B1G.
(01-19-2014 02:35 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (01-19-2014 10:50 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ] (01-19-2014 08:09 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (01-18-2014 06:13 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]The advantage of being is old is that you recognize old failed strategies. Prior to 1992 the SEC used this format. We didn't have a round robin and usually only played 7 conference games. Each school had 5 permanent rivals and rotated the rest, although more infrequently that you might think. The problem is perfectly illustrated by those chosen by Alabama to permanent rivals and those chosen by Auburn.
Alabama: Tennessee, Mississippi State, L.S.U., Auburn, Vanderbilt
Auburn: Tennessee, Mississippi State, Alabama, Florida, Georgia
To decide the conference championship it was the team with the best conference record. In the event of a tie it was decided by head competition. In the event of having not played it was decided by record against common opponents and after that by the best overall record.
There were many years that Auburn finished 1 game behind Alabama, and some of those where they finished 1 game behind but had beaten Alabama. Getting to play Vanderbilt and Mississippi State and L.S.U. before they were great (still good but a long way from great) meant that while Auburn played Florida, Georgia, and Alabama to finish out the season every year, Alabama had annual games against 2 lesser opponents prior to playing Auburn. All things being fairly equal on any given year that gave the Tide a leg up not only on Auburn, but on many other conference teams as well. Tennessee's advantage was that they played Alabama, Auburn, ,Georgia, Vanderbilt and Kentucky. So annually of the top teams Tennesse and Alabama claimed two each of the weaker teams to play. Most of the others had 4 conference games against schools at least good enough to beat them. Back in those days Vanderbilt was a guaranteed win. Kentucky and Mississippi State likely wins. Ole Miss, Florida, and L.S.U. a possible loss. Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and Auburn were the ones most likely to make a run and pretty much in that order. And, because Georgia and Alabama had once had a major disagreement they seldom played even in the rotation.
Everybody hated the system because it was inherently biased. So I say we've been there, tried it, it failed miserably due to structural inequities in the scheduling and the 4 pod rotation guarantees that you have to play everyone outside of your tiny division every three years and that every one in your division plays the same core of 7 conference games each year and that's why that system will be superior (not perfect but superior).
Failed?
That system invented the "mystique" that is SEC football.
While I can see the disdain that an Auburn fan might have for the way things were, that old system made football superstars out of Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and LSU.
When you are trying to build a brand, an inherently biased system is the way to go, it also makes much better "must see TV" out of your own market area (it might sell a few more network subscriptions, or a pay-per-view audience).
If you are scheduling for television (which ESPN/FOX want) you have to provide the match-ups that will sell.....it's basic marketing.
Why would Swofford want to introduce this system to the ACC? Because even though it wasn't fair, was hated by some, it worked to build SEC football into what it is today. The ACC needs that to develop into an attractive alternative football league to the SEC (at the expense of the PAC and the B1G), and the SEC needs it to provide marketable match-ups for the SEC network.
The fact that you think divisions will not allow the AC to be that "alternative to the SEC at the cost of the PAC and Big Ten" just goes to show that the conference is weak and only has a small number of strong selling teams.
The ACC is not going to be able to get the likes of the SEC, Big Ten and PAC to go along with the no division rule. It is not going to happen and I doubt that the Networks want it either.
Sorry, but you guys dug your own grave if this is how you truly see it. Geographic small divisions absolutely makes sense but let me guess....you don't like seeing the likes of Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville making up a division?
Too bad I guess.
What I see is that at this point in time there are 3 conferences that have 14 members (not 16), and there is a formula on the table that would allow schools to play each other more frequently while protecting long standing rivalries.
This plan allows ESPN to plan, pick and choose ACC inventory to combat CBS in the Saturday afternoon and give them better SEC inventory to broadcast on Saturday night. Make no mistake, this proposal benefits ESPN as much or more as it does the ACC, SEC or B1G. The main help to the conferences is that it provides a temporary fix for the scheduling delima of having 14 teams.
Everything that happens from this point forward will have to have previous approval of the people paying the bills. It is in ESPN's best interest to have the best SEC and ACC inventory available in case they are not successful in securing a new contract with the B1G.
There is zero incentive for the SEC and Big 10 to stay at 14. What happens with the ACC depends upon the viability of a network. But even if one does not materialize the ACC needs to consider its future position, its scheduling issues, and covering weaknesses before all viable targets are off the board. I just don't see scheduling 14 as a long term problem.
That said I'm still very familiar with the 14 team pod theory and how it operates. This came out about two years ago and while it doesn't operate like the 4 pod system it does mix and match outside of the core teams fairly well, but it is far from equitable.
The Big Ten isn't staying at 14. One way or another, they will expand.
(01-19-2014 09:20 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]The Big Ten isn't staying at 14. One way or another, they will expand.
Could you look into your crystal ball and tell me when and with whom?
(01-20-2014 04:30 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (01-19-2014 09:20 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]The Big Ten isn't staying at 14. One way or another, they will expand.
Could you look into your crystal ball and tell me when and with whom?
Virginia and Syracuse.........................well how about Kansas and Connecticut.
(01-20-2014 04:36 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-20-2014 04:30 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (01-19-2014 09:20 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]The Big Ten isn't staying at 14. One way or another, they will expand.
Could you look into your crystal ball and tell me when and with whom?
Virginia and Syracuse.........................well how about Kansas and Connecticut.
That expands the circle to 66 and adds a mouth to feed.
Then a possible scenario would be that the PAC takes Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. The SEC gets Oklahoma ( or Okie State if you prefer) and West Virginia and Texas goes to the ACC as a partial along with Baylor and TCU. At that point everyone is accounted for.
(01-20-2014 04:36 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-20-2014 04:30 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (01-19-2014 09:20 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]The Big Ten isn't staying at 14. One way or another, they will expand.
Could you look into your crystal ball and tell me when and with whom?
Virginia and Syracuse.........................well how about Kansas and Connecticut.
It's a good thing that you weren't serious about Syracuse and Virginia......how would you tell them apart from Illinois?
