Mountain West eyeing a single division for 2023.
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/moun...ttMcMurphy

You guys think they'll go as low as 2 permanent rivals or keep 5, just mixing up East and West a bit more (Boise-Fresno and Boise-Nevada were good series). Maybe they'll do something exotic.

(05-05-2022 05:42 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Mountain West eyeing a single division for 2023.
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/moun...ttMcMurphy

You guys think they'll go as low as 2 permanent rivals or keep 5, just mixing up East and West a bit more (Boise-Fresno and Boise-Nevada were good series). Maybe they'll do something exotic.

If just 2 per team, maybe something like this:

Air Force: Colorado State, Wyoming
Boise State: Nevada, Utah State
Colorado State: Wyoming, Air Force
Fresno State: San Diego State, San Jose State
Hawaii: San Jose State, San Diego State
Nevada: UNLV, Boise State
New Mexico: Utah State, UNLV
San Diego State: Hawaii, Fresno State
San Jose State: Fresno State, Hawaii
UNLV: New Mexico, Nevada
Utah State: Boise State, New Mexico
Wyoming: Air Force, Colorado State

So there's an Air Force/CSU/Wyoming chain, a Fresno/SDSU/Hawaii/SJSU chain, and a Boise/Nevada/UNLV/UNM/USU chain.

(05-05-2022 05:42 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Mountain West eyeing a single division for 2023.
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/moun...ttMcMurphy

You guys think they'll go as low as 2 permanent rivals or keep 5, just mixing up East and West a bit more (Boise-Fresno and Boise-Nevada were good series). Maybe they'll do something exotic.

Let's see. 8 conference games. 12 members. That works out to 5 permanent rivals and 6 teams you play 50% of the time. Which I know sounds a lot like divisions but it does not mean have to have to set up your 5 permant rivals like that.

Example of 5 permanent rivals setup
New Mexico - CSU, AFA, Wyoming, Nev, FSU
CSU - New Mexico, AFA, Wyoming, USU, Boise
AFA - NM, CSU, WY, USU, SDSU
WY - NM, CSU, AFA, USU, Nev

Boise - CSU, USU, UNLV, SDSU, Hawaii
USU - CSU, AFA, Boise, WY, UNLV
UNLV - SJSU, Nev, Boise, USU, Hawaii
Nev - UNLV, SJSU, FSU, NM, WY

SJSU - Nev, FSU, SDSU, Hawaii, UNLV
FSU - Nev, SJSU, SDSU, Hawaii, NM
SDSU - SJSU, FSU, Hawaii, Boise, AFA
Hawaii - SDSU, FSU, SJSU, Boise, UNLV

Math question. If you try and give teams “balanced” schedules, how many common opponents can you guarantee to any pair of teams who don’t have head to head? Record against Common Opponents would be a decent tie-breaker before having to resort to some ranking.

For example, I think in the Pac-12 you can guarantee 7 Common Opponents for any pair of teams. If Team A went 1-1 against extra opponents Oregon and Utah while team B went 2-0 against Colorado and California, Team A would get the spot in the CCG.

Now, say the SEC stayed at 8 games. You could guarantee 2. Maybe 3 or 4? But that would likely be too few to build a tie-breaker around. For the G5, because money is tied to the NY6, they’d use rankings as soon as head-to-head sweep fails.

(05-06-2022 03:43 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Math question. If you try and give teams “balanced” schedules, how many common opponents can you guarantee to any pair of teams who don’t have head to head? Record against Common Opponents would be a decent tie-breaker before having to resort to some ranking.

For example, I think in the Pac-12 you can guarantee 7 Common Opponents for any pair of teams. If Team A went 1-1 against extra opponents Oregon and Utah while team B went 2-0 against Colorado and California, Team A would get the spot in the CCG.

Now, say the SEC stayed at 8 games. You could guarantee 2. Maybe 3 or 4? But that would likely be too few to build a tie-breaker around. For the G5, because money is tied to the NY6, they’d use rankings as soon as head-to-head sweep fails.

If two Pac-12 teams don't play each other, then they have to each play 9 of the other 10 teams. So let's say Oregon State doesn't play Colorado, but they tied for second in the division-less standings.

Oregon State picks its 9 opponents, and plays all but Arizona. Colorado then picks Arizona to avoid a common opponent. But its other 8 opponents necessarily include a team picked by Oregon State. They choose all but Cal.

Oregon State and Colorado will have 8 common opponents, and each have a "non-common" opponent: Oregon State will play Cal, but not Arizona. Colorado will play Arizona, but not Cal.

Let's assume Oregon State beat Cal, and Colorado beat Arizona. Since we assumed that Oregon State and Colorado tied in the standings - we would not need a tie breaker otherwise, then their result against their common 8 opponents would be the same.

A typical procedure in that case would then be to compare games against common opponents based on standings. Washington was undefeated, so both Oregon State and Colorado lost to Washington.

We might end up comparing our two tied teams against the 4th, 5th, etc. teams (while skipping Arizona and Cal). We may end up not being able to resolve the tie without considering away games or points scored.

(05-06-2022 07:55 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(05-06-2022 03:43 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Math question. If you try and give teams “balanced” schedules, how many common opponents can you guarantee to any pair of teams who don’t have head to head? Record against Common Opponents would be a decent tie-breaker before having to resort to some ranking.

For example, I think in the Pac-12 you can guarantee 7 Common Opponents for any pair of teams. If Team A went 1-1 against extra opponents Oregon and Utah while team B went 2-0 against Colorado and California, Team A would get the spot in the CCG.

Now, say the SEC stayed at 8 games. You could guarantee 2. Maybe 3 or 4? But that would likely be too few to build a tie-breaker around. For the G5, because money is tied to the NY6, they’d use rankings as soon as head-to-head sweep fails.

If two Pac-12 teams don't play each other, then they have to each play 9 of the other 10 teams. So let's say Oregon State doesn't play Colorado, but they tied for second in the division-less standings.

Oregon State picks its 9 opponents, and plays all but Arizona. Colorado then picks Arizona to avoid a common opponent. But its other 8 opponents necessarily include a team picked by Oregon State. They choose all but Cal.

Oregon State and Colorado will have 8 common opponents, and each have a "non-common" opponent: Oregon State will play Cal, but not Arizona. Colorado will play Arizona, but not Cal.

Let's assume Oregon State beat Cal, and Colorado beat Arizona. Since we assumed that Oregon State and Colorado tied in the standings - we would not need a tie breaker otherwise, then their result against their common 8 opponents would be the same.

A typical procedure in that case would then be to compare games against common opponents based on standings. Washington was undefeated, so both Oregon State and Colorado lost to Washington.

We might end up comparing our two tied teams against the 4th, 5th, etc. teams (while skipping Arizona and Cal). We may end up not being able to resolve the tie without considering away games or points scored.

Yes. Especially in a 14 team league, you get into obscure tiebreakers. I think its pretty stupid to turn it into a coin flip instead of deciding it on the field (obviously not every year, but it will happen frequently getting down to the 4th or 5th tiebreak-look at the NFL). Most of the people liking divisionless ccgs by contrast, want to expand the playoff to decide it on the field.

(05-05-2022 05:42 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Mountain West eyeing a single division for 2023.
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/moun...ttMcMurphy

You guys think they'll go as low as 2 permanent rivals or keep 5, just mixing up East and West a bit more (Boise-Fresno and Boise-Nevada were good series). Maybe they'll do something exotic.

I like the division setup. Going divisionless will have more problems. Especially when 3 or 4 teams have the same record.

Mountain West, like the Pac-12, can easily have 3 groups of 4 football teams who play each other every year and also play 3 of the 4 teams in the other 2 groups.

Wyoming, CSU, AFA, UNM
Boise St, Utah St, Nevada, UNLV
SJSU, Fresno St, SDSU, Hawaii

That’s 9 conference games. If the MWC wanted to play only 8, then using 4 groups of 3 allows for regular rotation of all opponents.

Big 12 could also do 4 groups of 3, something like:

WVU/UCF/UC
ISU/KU/KSU
OSU/TCU/TTech
BYU/Houston/Baylor

Otherwise, I'd prefer 3 groups of 4 as I laid out earlier somewhere in the thread.

I think what you're going to see happen is the Big 12 and other conferences go divisionless but schedule as if they're in divisions or pods but with permanent opponents pre-set.

(05-06-2022 10:43 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-05-2022 05:42 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Mountain West eyeing a single division for 2023.
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/moun...ttMcMurphy

You guys think they'll go as low as 2 permanent rivals or keep 5, just mixing up East and West a bit more (Boise-Fresno and Boise-Nevada were good series). Maybe they'll do something exotic.

I like the division setup. Going divisionless will have more problems. Especially when 3 or 4 teams have the same record.

Yes. Its going away from deciding things on the field. We're going to NFL type tiebreakers, but we don't have 1/3 of the league playing off for the title.

(05-02-2022 09:35 AM)goofus Wrote:  As an Iowa fan, I would like to get rid of divisions because of the additional flexibility of scheduling. I like the idea of Iowa playing OSU, Mich, MSU, PSU at least 50% of the time. I also apologize to Rutgers, but no team from the West wants to be the team that ends up having to play Rutgers 6 straight years, which is Iowa's current schedule.

I am also Ok with the idea of having the 2 best teams in the conference playing in the CCG, even if that means an OSU-Mich rematch.

Besides if the Big Ten goes with a schedule with 5 permanent rivals, it would be easy to set up unoficial division formats that don't count in the CCC race Just set it up that the 2 best teams overall still go to the CCG.

Unofficial west division
Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, NW, ILL

Unofficial Central
Mich, MSU, Pur, Indy

Unofficial East
OSU, PSU, MD, Rut

In the end the unofficial division titles would be meaningless in the CCC race, but the winning teams get bragging rights and they could even make another traveling trophy or something.

Why do we care what you think about the Big Ten? Just curious.

(05-01-2022 08:05 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

Quote:A special Big 12 subcommittee formed to determine how to best incorporate up to 14 teams in conference realignment from 2023-24 had been expected to finalize league composition and schedules this week. However, the Big 12 is awaiting resolution on a proposal from the NCAA Football Oversight Committee that would allow all leagues to play without divisions but still hold conference championship games without a waiver from the association.

That would give conferences an opportunity to match their two best (usually highest-ranked) teams in league title games. The legislation would be an option, not a mandate. Currently, the only FBS conferences that play without divisions are the 10-team Big 12 and 11-team American. The Big 12 plays a round-robin schedule, granting it the ability to play a conference championship game, while the AAC has an NCAA waiver to match its two best teams for the league title.

With divisions becoming less of a consideration, the Big 12 has to retrench with its largest membership ever, albeit temporarily.

"You're basically starting [the scheduling process] from scratch," a source familiar with the Big 12 process told CBS Sports.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...trictions/

I would imagine that the Big 12 is not exactly sure which teams are going to be in the league by 2023-24.
Kansas? Gone to the B1G or perhaps the PAC?
West Virginia and/or the not even initiated Cincinnati gone to the ACC?

(05-21-2022 11:21 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-01-2022 08:05 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

Quote:A special Big 12 subcommittee formed to determine how to best incorporate up to 14 teams in conference realignment from 2023-24 had been expected to finalize league composition and schedules this week. However, the Big 12 is awaiting resolution on a proposal from the NCAA Football Oversight Committee that would allow all leagues to play without divisions but still hold conference championship games without a waiver from the association.

That would give conferences an opportunity to match their two best (usually highest-ranked) teams in league title games. The legislation would be an option, not a mandate. Currently, the only FBS conferences that play without divisions are the 10-team Big 12 and 11-team American. The Big 12 plays a round-robin schedule, granting it the ability to play a conference championship game, while the AAC has an NCAA waiver to match its two best teams for the league title.

With divisions becoming less of a consideration, the Big 12 has to retrench with its largest membership ever, albeit temporarily.

"You're basically starting [the scheduling process] from scratch," a source familiar with the Big 12 process told CBS Sports.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...trictions/

I would imagine that the Big 12 is not exactly sure which teams are going to be in the league by 2023-24.
Kansas? Gone to the B1G or perhaps the PAC?
West Virginia and/or the not even initiated Cincinnati gone to the ACC?

The only remaining B8/B12 program that might be considered a flight risk is Kansas, and that would depend on whether there's a big time program outside the SEC/Big Ten that might become available or basketball becomes separated from the NCAA.

So I'm going to assume that the new Big 12 would be those members for the foreseeable future.

(05-02-2022 04:20 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  And if that's the case, then I have to go with the following pods: 3+3+3, so you play everyone 3/4 years.

1. WVU, UC, UCF, Houston
2. OSU, ISU, KU, KSU
3. TTech, Baylor, TCU, BYU

That is what I was thinking they should do - makes much more sense than divisions, where someone is left out - the old Big 8 with that long history is together, Texas schools and BYU, BYU/TCU rivalry, etc.

Travel picture for WV especially improves.

In basketball do you just do the 22 game home and home conf season or do 14 games (6 pod games plus 8)?

(05-21-2022 11:21 AM)XLance Wrote:  I would imagine that the Big 12 is not exactly sure which teams are going to be in the league by 2023-24.
Kansas? Gone to the B1G or perhaps the PAC?
West Virginia and/or the not even initiated Cincinnati gone to the ACC?

The Pac 12 and ACC need serious help... but the Big 12 is stronger together.

The ACC scooped up too many terrible Northern hoops teams and then they signed a TERRIBLE long-term contract (until 2035). No one is looking to join the ACC... They are looking to leave.

It will probably be the Big 12 scooping up Pac 12 or ACC teams, when the garage sales happen.

(05-23-2022 06:10 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 11:21 AM)XLance Wrote:  I would imagine that the Big 12 is not exactly sure which teams are going to be in the league by 2023-24.
Kansas? Gone to the B1G or perhaps the PAC?
West Virginia and/or the not even initiated Cincinnati gone to the ACC?

The Pac 12 and ACC need serious help... but the Big 12 is stronger together.

The ACC scooped up too many terrible Northern hoops teams and then they signed a TERRIBLE long-term contract (until 2035). No one is looking to join the ACC... They are looking to leave.

It will probably be the Big 12 scooping up Pac 12 or ACC teams, when the garage sales happen.

lol

The three wins over the ACC the past five seasons is clearly going to decide the fate of conference realignment.

(05-21-2022 11:21 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-01-2022 08:05 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

Quote:A special Big 12 subcommittee formed to determine how to best incorporate up to 14 teams in conference realignment from 2023-24 had been expected to finalize league composition and schedules this week. However, the Big 12 is awaiting resolution on a proposal from the NCAA Football Oversight Committee that would allow all leagues to play without divisions but still hold conference championship games without a waiver from the association.

That would give conferences an opportunity to match their two best (usually highest-ranked) teams in league title games. The legislation would be an option, not a mandate. Currently, the only FBS conferences that play without divisions are the 10-team Big 12 and 11-team American. The Big 12 plays a round-robin schedule, granting it the ability to play a conference championship game, while the AAC has an NCAA waiver to match its two best teams for the league title.

With divisions becoming less of a consideration, the Big 12 has to retrench with its largest membership ever, albeit temporarily.

"You're basically starting [the scheduling process] from scratch," a source familiar with the Big 12 process told CBS Sports.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...trictions/

I would imagine that the Big 12 is not exactly sure which teams are going to be in the league by 2023-24.
Kansas? Gone to the B1G or perhaps the PAC?
West Virginia and/or the not even initiated Cincinnati gone to the ACC?

This nonsense again?

(05-23-2022 03:40 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 04:20 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  And if that's the case, then I have to go with the following pods: 3+3+3, so you play everyone 3/4 years.

1. WVU, UC, UCF, Houston
2. OSU, ISU, KU, KSU
3. TTech, Baylor, TCU, BYU

That is what I was thinking they should do - makes much more sense than divisions, where someone is left out - the old Big 8 with that long history is together, Texas schools and BYU, BYU/TCU rivalry, etc.

Travel picture for WV especially improves.

In basketball do you just do the 22 game home and home conf season or do 14 games (6 pod games plus 8)?

It makes no sense to split Houston from the other Texas schools.

For West Virginia, it would mean playing 4 times in Provo and 3 in Houston over 8 years, vs. 3 times in Provo and 4 in Houston.

Time-zone wise it would mean that the ET teams would have four MT games every eight years, rather than only 3.

Houston will get more attendance for games against Baylor, TCU, and Texas Tech than they will UCF, WVU, Cincinnati, and (probably BYU).

Houston has over 25 games against Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU, much of it when they were in the SWC. The only comparable school is Cincinnati, much of which occurred when they were in the MVC almost 50 years ago.

I think basketball you would want more games in conference. So play 6 games against the other pods, play H-and-H with two of them in alternating years.

Perhaps all the regular inter-pod games can be played away or at home:

Year 1:
Odd Pod @ Big 8 Pod
Big 8 Pod @ Texas Pod
Texas Pod @ Odd Pod

And reversing the following season.

Then if there are extra intra-pod games reverse.

So WVU and Cincinnati would travel to Iowa State, K-State, Kansas, and OSU (two weeks), and a Texas pair (say Baylor and TCU) one Week.

They would also host one Big 8 pair (say Iowa State and Kansas State), and both Texas pairs.

The following season WVU and Cincinnati would travel to Texas twice, but only once to a pair of Big 8 schools (Kansas and OSU).

They would also host Houston and Texas Tech, and all four Big 8 schools.

Over two years, they would play every other pod school three times, and over four years it would be six times with home and away balanced.

So 18 games, 6 intra-pod games, 6 against each of the other two pods.

Expand to keep 14-teams after Texas and OU leave
9 Conference Games
Format: 5-4-4

5 Rivals allows the Texas teams to all play each other and still branch out a little