YNot
All American
Posts: 4,673
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 298
I Root For: BYU
Location:
|
RE: Divisionless Football Conferences?
(11-16-2018 01:12 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: (01-30-2018 05:34 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: So there is already at least one large conference that lacks divisions and uses protected matchups for football: the Big Sky Conference. There will be 14 football schools in the Big Sky in the 2018 and 2019 seasons (technically 13, as UND is FCS independent but is still playing a Big Sky schedule). Each team has 2 protected rivals, as shown here.
Right now they're using an 8-game conference schedule, but they may be moving to 9 games in 2020. That year North Dakota football joins the MVFC, leaving 13 football schools once again. Presumably, if the conference sticks with 2 protected matchups, MSU and UNC (UND's partners) will just play each other.
Since Idaho is rejoining as a football school this year, EWU is losing its protected matchup with UM. This could be reversed in 2020 by increasing the number of protected matchups. This also would allow Idaho to play ISU every year. Having 3 protected matchups in a 13-team conference means that one team is perpetually going to end up with 2 or 4 protected matchups, so perhaps 4 matchups across the board would be better.
Here's my proposal for the protected matchups for 2020 on:
Cal Poly: Sac State, UC Davis + NAU, SUU
EWU: Idaho, PSU + Montana, MSU
Idaho: EWU, Montana + ISU, PSU
ISU: Weber + Idaho, Montana, MSU (- PSU)
Montana: Idaho, MSU + EWU, ISU
MSU: Montana + EWU, ISU, UNC, (- UND)
NAU: SUU, UNC + Cal Poly, UC Davis
PSU: EWU + Idaho, Sac State, UC Davis (- ISU)
Sac State: Cal Poly, UC Davis + PSU, Weber
SUU: NAU, Weber + Cal Poly, UNC
UC Davis: Cal Poly, Sac State + NAU, PSU
UNC: NAU + MSU, SUU, Weber (- UND)
Weber: ISU, SUU + Sac State, UNC
With an 8-game schedule, each team can play half the 8 non-protected opponents every year. A 9-game schedule is doable; it just makes these pairings more frequent. Note that a 9-game conference schedule with 13 teams means one team will end up with 8 or 10 conference games. The team affected by this can be rotated annually.
Here's the Big Sky schedule proposed above in table form, plus 2 more columns of opponents:
Code:
CAL POLY Sacramento State UC Davis Northern Arizona Southern Utah | Idaho Northern Colorado
EASTERN WASHINGTON Idaho Portland State Montana Montana State | Idaho State UC Davis
IDAHO Montana Eastern Washington Portland State Idaho State | Montana State Cal Poly
IDAHO STATE Weber State Idaho Montana State Montana | Northern Colorado Eastern Washington
MONTANA Montana State Idaho State Idaho Eastern Washington | Weber State Portland State
MONTANA STATE Idaho State Montana Eastern Washington Northern Colorado | Portland State Idaho
NORTHERN ARIZONA Cal Poly Southern Utah Northern Colorado UC Davis | Sacramento State Weber State
NORTHERN COLORADO Northern Arizona Montana State Southern Utah Weber State | Cal Poly Idaho State
PORTLAND STATE Eastern Washington Sacramento State UC Davis Idaho | Montana Montana State
SACRAMENTO STATE UC Davis Cal Poly Weber State Portland State | Southern Utah Northern Arizona
SOUTHERN UTAH Northern Colorado Weber State Cal Poly Northern Arizona | UC Davis Sacramento State
UC DAVIS Portland State Northern Arizona Sacramento State Cal Poly | Eastern Washington Southern Utah
WEBER STATE Southern Utah Northern Colorado Idaho State Sacramento State | Northern Arizona Montana
The first 4 columns of opponents are for an 8-game conference schedule with 4 protected opponents and the additional 2 columns are for a 9-game schedule with 6 protected opponents. In each case, a team plays its protected opponents and half the non-protected opponents every year (alternating biennially).
And here is an alternate divisionless schedule that includes NMSU, in case they decide to throw in the FBS towel like Idaho:
Code:
CAL POLY Northern Arizona UC Davis Sacramento State | Southern Utah New Mexico State
EASTERN WASHINGTON Portland State Montana Idaho | Sacramento State UC Davis
IDAHO Montana Idaho State Eastern Washington | Montana State Portland State
IDAHO STATE Idaho Montana State Weber State | Montana Sacramento State
MONTANA Eastern Washington Idaho Montana State | Weber State Idaho State
MONTANA STATE Idaho State Northern Colorado Montana | Portland State Idaho
NEW MEXICO STATE Southern Utah Northern Arizona Northern Colorado | Cal Poly Weber State
NORTHERN ARIZONA New Mexico State Cal Poly Southern Utah | UC Davis Northern Colorado
NORTHERN COLORADO Montana State Weber State New Mexico State | Northern Arizona Southern Utah
PORTLAND STATE Sacramento State Eastern Washington UC Davis | Idaho Montana State
SACRAMENTO STATE UC Davis Portland State Cal Poly | Idaho State Eastern Washington
SOUTHERN UTAH Weber State New Mexico State Northern Arizona | Northern Colorado Cal Poly
UC DAVIS Cal Poly Sacramento State Portland State | Eastern Washington Northern Arizona
WEBER STATE Northern Colorado Southern Utah Idaho State | New Mexico State Montana
The first 3 columns of opponents are for an 8-game conference schedule with 3 protected opponents and the additional 2 columns are for a 9-game schedule with 5 protected opponents. In each case, a team plays its protected opponents and half the non-protected opponents every year (alternating biennially).
With 14 teams, the Big Sky could instead go with a 2-division alignment, like so:
North: Eastern Washington, Idaho, Idaho State, Montana, Montana State, Northern Colorado, Portland State
South: Cal Poly, New Mexico State, Northern Arizona, Sacramento State, Southern Utah, UC Davis, Weber State
But of course there's less incentive to do so in FCS, where there are few conference championship games due to the tournament.
---
EDIT: As it turns out, the Big Sky is not actually planning to move to 9 conference games in 2020: https://www.foxsports.com/college-footba...ule-102116
This is evidenced by Cal Poly's 2020 schedule, which can be found here: https://fbschedules.com/ncaa/cal-poly/
I like the idea to replace the conference championship games with CFP expansion. Then, the FBS conferences could more easily move to division-less scheduling.
|
|