(01-02-2018 03:06 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 02:27 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 01:48 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  Ok I am going to throw out a P3 where the first 2 leagues have contiguous partners and each new team in the SEC has a history with at least 2 teams and the B1G does on the basis of the Rose Bowl(that's kind of loose but its really the only way to make it work in the 2nd league). The 3rd league has fire power but expands across the country which is a negative but on the other hand a positive to ND in the ACC.

Again, I hold to the idea leagues shouldn't require them and are better served by a single set of standings and where teams lock in 3-4 rivals and play everyone else on an unequal basis.

SEC: add: Clemson, FSU, Ga. Tech, OU, Ok. St., KS (I think Miami or Louisville makes more sense but I don't think they meet the 2 rival requirement, don't know if I am wrong and either Miami or Louisville meet this requirement if they do choose one of those teams and KS. goes to the ACC.

B1G: add: Colorado, Az., Wash., Oregon, and either UCLA/Cal or USC/Stanford
***Rose Bowl is the 2 common opponent requirement and Colorado is the bridge.
***Does USC/Stanford want the B1G or ND/Texas in the ACC?

ACC: add: Texas, TT, TCU, ISU, WVU, ASU, Utah or BYU, and then either USC/Stanford or UCLA/CAL. IF Miami or Louisville was acceptable for the SEC KS. goes here.
****ACC lost 3 or 4 depending on whether the SEC has to take KS so with ND they need to add 8 or 9
****Does USC & Stanford want to pair themselves with the B1G and former teams such as Oregon & Wash. or do they want to play ND each year and a conference that includes Texas.
****Texas seems to want a rivalry with ND, this could allow for it. They don't want to go to the SEC and they won't go to the B1G without more partners than the B1G allows them to bring.
****This league definitely doesn't want to play everyone equally due to brands and geography.

I'll bet nobody has came up with this P3 before and I don't think I would have without JR's requirements.

So, to untangle that, this (with my divisional alignment):

SEC
West: Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas A&M
South: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Vanderbilt
East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Clemson
Central: Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia Tech, Florida St

B1G
West: Washington, Oregon, California, UCLA, Arizona
Central: Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
North: Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan St
East: Michigan, Ohio St, Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers

ACC
West: Stanford, USC, Arizona St, Utah, Texas Tech
South: Iowa St, Texas, TCU, Louisville, Miami
East: North Carolina, North Carolina St, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia
North: Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College

In the ACC you need to replace Wake Forest with ND.

I appreciate showing where the schools align geographically helps but I really think the league needs to go to one standings and only lock in 3 to 4 rivals and play other schools at different frequencies. Some are played 2 out of 4 years, some are played 2 out of 6 years and maybe some 2 out of 4 years. Especially the geography of the newly constructed ACC listed here. USC, Stanford & Texas would need to play ND every year to maximize value or possibly only USC & Texas every year & Stanford 2 out of 4 years.

This kind of scheduling would be better for all the leagues but it definitely would be better for the ACC.

Oh ok, that makes more sense. I couldn't tell from the post if Notre Dame was maintaining its current status with the ACC. Here's a redoing of the ACC...

ACC
West: Stanford, USC, Notre Dame, Texas, Texas Tech
Arizona St, Utah
South: Arizona St, Utah, Iowa St, TCU, Louisville
East: North Carolina, North Carolina St, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech
North: Miami, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College