Positive would be getting to know more of your conference mates in a big conference. Negative would be less interaction with other parts of the country. Especially the Big 10 since they are going to 9 conference games in the near future.

http://www.fbschedules.com/2014/05/acc-b...onference/

A good idea if used sparingly. I really think going to no set divisions is the best answer.

This is too funny! Playing OOC against yourself. That will conflict eventually when the team that won actually needs to count that as a conference game to get to a title game or a higher bowl.

Go to freaking 9 games or 10 if you are so concern about not playing other teams.

This is why Super Conferences will not last very long.

Perfectly fine with me. It resolves the issue of not being too restrictive on schools that have valuable non-conference rivalries (i.e. FSU/UF, Clemson/South Carolina, etc.), but allowing others to play their non-conference mates more often if they choose to do so. From a financial perspective, it also creates more TV inventory for the conferences.

(05-14-2014 08:44 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  A good idea if used sparingly. I really think going to no set divisions is the best answer.

This. Solves the problem rather easily.

(05-14-2014 09:06 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 08:44 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  A good idea if used sparingly. I really think going to no set divisions is the best answer.

This. Solves the problem rather easily.

I agree on the logic but you and frank may be underestimating the confusion this would cause to the casual fan. It also feeds the "conference can be too big" narrative, which I do not believe is useful to a 14 team conference.

Maybe, but I dont think its too hard to understand a basketball schedule and thats essentially what this is.

You play 3-4 set teams every year, a "permanent rivalry pod" if you will, (for UGA that would probably be UF/USC/AU and then one more if it were 4) and then just rotate through the other 5 games. You get to play everyone home and away in 3-4 years allowing the best of both a large and small conference.

(05-14-2014 09:10 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 09:06 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 08:44 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  A good idea if used sparingly. I really think going to no set divisions is the best answer.

This. Solves the problem rather easily.

I agree on the logic but you and frank may be underestimating the confusion this would cause to the casual fan. It also feeds the "conference can be too big" narrative, which I do not believe is useful to a 14 team conference.

How did they go undefeated in conference we beat them?
Big Sky allows OOC games vs conference teams .

This sounds pretty idiotic. You mean to tell me you can't find an acceptable solution to play a schedule involving all the teams in your conference in a reasonable timeframe? If not, then what in the heck are you doing as a conference?

(05-14-2014 09:16 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Maybe, but I dont think its too hard to understand a basketball schedule and thats essentially what this is.

You play 3-4 set teams every year, a "permanent rivalry pod" if you will, (for UGA that would probably be UF/USC/AU and then one more if it were 4) and then just rotate through the other 5 games. You get to play everyone home and away in 3-4 years allowing the best of both a large and small conference.

For 8 games: A 3-5-5 (no divisions) is the best solution I've seen for 14 team conferences

I think scheduling a conference school to an OOC is a last resort thing...I'd rather see a school from another conference.

(05-14-2014 09:00 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Perfectly fine with me. It resolves the issue of not being too restrictive on schools that have valuable non-conference rivalries (i.e. FSU/UF, Clemson/South Carolina, etc.), but allowing others to play their non-conference mates more often if they choose to do so. From a financial perspective, it also creates more TV inventory for the conferences.

For years -- actually decades -- SEC football-schedules were set up by each individual school, not by the league. So you had some schools play 6 conferences games, some 7, and -- once in a while -- one of the centrally-located teams like Alabama or Ole Miss would even play 8.

In spite of the statistical imbalance, somehow the world didn't stop.

I think the CFP should mandate 10 Power 5 games per year. Period.

The Big Ten can play 9 conference games...and then 1 OOC Power 5 game...and two cream puffs.

The ACC and SEC can play their 8 conference games...but then for goodness sakes!!!...play 2 other Power 5 teams OOC. I understand that many of those games are fixed already (UGA/GaTech, UF/FSU, SoCar/Clem, etc)...but don't patronized everyone and say you'll only play 1 other Power 5 school.

The real sticking point isn't difficulty of schedule--it's home games. For the schools that MUST have 7 home games, this "10 game Power 5 schedule" is perfect.

In the years that Big Ten schools have 5 away games, they can have all three OOC games at home (including their home-away series with their Power 5 opponent). This works for the SEC too...in years that UGA plays away at GaTech (technically 5 away game FIXED on their schedule when added to the 4 SEC away games)...they can play their other OOC game at home (the home portion of a home-away).

Will it get messy for scheduling? Sure. But it's very, very do-able.

This would not be new to the Big Ten.

I believe Michigan played Minnesota in the 80's as a non-conference game. Someone mentioned a while back on another board that other Big Ten teams have found themselves in a scheduling hole on the same date and then scheduled each other.

Financially I could see playing at Michigan to be a reasonable substitute to losing a home game.

(05-14-2014 09:16 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Maybe, but I dont think its too hard to understand a basketball schedule and thats essentially what this is.

You play 3-4 set teams every year, a "permanent rivalry pod" if you will, (for UGA that would probably be UF/USC/AU and then one more if it were 4) and then just rotate through the other 5 games. You get to play everyone home and away in 3-4 years allowing the best of both a large and small conference.

Exactly how I see it. I want the Big Ten to go in this direction once that legislation passes and I'm confident that it will. I want Maryland and Penn State on the schedule every year for obvious reasons and beyond that I want to see everyone in the conference on as regular basis as possible. This method achieves that.

(05-14-2014 09:16 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Maybe, but I dont think its too hard to understand a basketball schedule and thats essentially what this is.

You play 3-4 set teams every year, a "permanent rivalry pod" if you will, (for UGA that would probably be UF/USC/AU and then one more if it were 4) and then just rotate through the other 5 games. You get to play everyone home and away in 3-4 years allowing the best of both a large and small conference.

Try explaining what you just said to someone who only watches a few big college games per year.

(05-14-2014 09:31 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  This would not be new to the Big Ten.

I believe Michigan played Minnesota in the 80's as a non-conference game. Someone mentioned a while back on another board that other Big Ten teams have found themselves in a scheduling hole on the same date and then scheduled each other.

Financially I could see playing at Michigan to be a reasonable substitute to losing a home game.

Cal played at Colorado as a non-conference football game in CU's first year in the Pac-12, to finish off a non-con series that started before CU joined the league. Wasn't a big deal.

Some schools play non-conference baseball games against conference mates every year, in addition to the conference games, and have for a long time.

As others said above, the ultimate answer is getting rid of the football divisions, whenever the NCAA gets around to passing that rule change.

Or rather than get rid of divisions, embrace the divisions and only count the intra-division games in the standings. If you have 14 teams play 6 games. Tell everyone they have to play a minimum of 2 games against the other division and work out it however you see fit either let the AD's handle it or the league can work with TV to put it in place. If you want to play 12 Big 10 games and there are enough willing opponents, go for it.

But counting only divisional games resolves the issue of school X got a gilded path to the title game or school Y got the worst inter-divisional schedule for trying to advance.

Further reason for me to just stop watching college football. The whole championship thing is nothing more than a sham.

As leagues like the ACC try to shirk off playing a tough schedule so they can get a team in the playoff for wins--it is ruining the entire purpose of the playoffs---to reinvigorate college football which is in a bit of decline with the fans.

The Notre Dame game doesn't really prevent the ACC schools from playing 9 conference games and one P5 opponent as they are trying to spin. They can just make the ND game count as a conference game. Then for the four teams that have permanent SEC matchups that can be their OOC P5 game. When they don't play ND, add another ACC school into the schedule as a conference game.

That way, everyone has a non conference P5 game to prove if they are good, they still have whatever rotation with ND, and they'll get to meet each other a little more often.

Instead of rushing to have larger conferences which obviously is causing issues now with teams not playing one another anymore-or rarely, they should have thought all of this out in the first place.

You note in all this who is complaining about the 14 team conferences....its not the people actually in them.