Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
I Have a New Challenging Exercise for You.....
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Soobahk40050 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 567
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 40
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #21
RE: I Have a New Challenging Exercise for You.....
Jumping ahead I know, but Big 10 numbers.
ND: 6 familiar foes in Big 10
Pitt: 4 familiar foes in Big 10
Syracuse: 3 familiar foes in Big 10
West Virginia: 3 familiar foes in Big 10
Navy: 3 familiar foes in Big 10 (most schools count the academies as P5)
Army: 2 familiar foes
Boston College: 2
Iowa State: 3

I'll stick with my 18 team leagues and take four: I'll take ND, Pitt, Syracuse, Iowa State. ND makes a push to include Navy but Navy isn't quite ready to face Big 10 competition.

East:Penn St, Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, Maryland, Purdue
Central:ND, Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State, Indiana, Illinois
West: Northwestern, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Wisconsin

After this I went to the PAC:
Teams that meet criteria (include G5 because that was the most common for PAC):
Idaho: 5
SJSU: 3
SDSU: 2
NM: 3
UTEP: 3
NMSU: 2
BYU: 3
Wyoming: 3
Col St.:3

Based on the rules, PAC should not expand. However, I did not include Texas/Tech/TCU in my original claim for the SEC, so those three could move to the PAC. If I take from this list, however, I'm taking: SDSU, NM, BYU, and Colorado State to get to 16.

ACC:
(down Clemson and UNC to the SEC, Syracuse and Pitt to the Big 10):
5 schools meet criteria:
ECU: 2
Army: 2
West Virginia: 4
Navy: 4
USM: 2

Edit: WVU and Navy I'll take to get to 12. ECU replaces UNC and Navy gets the league back into NY after the loss of Syracuse.
(This post was last modified: 01-02-2018 01:39 PM by Soobahk40050.)
01-02-2018 12:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 199
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 8
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #22
RE: I Have a New Challenging Exercise for You.....
IN a P3 of 60 or 63 I don't think you can find reasonable grouping of conferences where each new team maintains an existing rivalry with 2 of the EXISTING members of the new conference outside of the 1st conference selected. For instance I can pick 6 with established rivalries for the SEC but you won't be able to do that with the new teams the B1G picks next. The B1G is going to go with ND, NC, Duke, Va., Va. Tech and Pitt or Syracuse. Oustide of ND all of those schools really only have rivalries or a history with Maryland. So unless only the SEC in a P3 has to have existing rivalries I don't think you can make it work.

Also, in a P3 where you have 3 pretty equal leagues I think a little horse trading could make sense. I don't know if that would still be against the rules because the SEC & B1G would theoretically have their advantage cut into by consolidating to 3 leagues. There could still be a money difference but it would be smaller and teams could decide a better fit is definitely more important than the small revenue difference.
01-02-2018 01:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,248
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 777
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #23
RE: I Have a New Challenging Exercise for You.....
(01-02-2018 01:03 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  IN a P3 of 60 or 63 I don't think you can find reasonable grouping of conferences where each new team maintains an existing rivalry with 2 of the EXISTING members of the new conference outside of the 1st conference selected. For instance I can pick 6 with established rivalries for the SEC but you won't be able to do that with the new teams the B1G picks next. The B1G is going to go with ND, NC, Duke, Va., Va. Tech and Pitt or Syracuse. Oustide of ND all of those schools really only have rivalries or a history with Maryland. So unless only the SEC in a P3 has to have existing rivalries I don't think you can make it work.

Also, in a P3 where you have 3 pretty equal leagues I think a little horse trading could make sense. I don't know if that would still be against the rules because the SEC & B1G would theoretically have their advantage cut into by consolidating to 3 leagues. There could still be a money difference but it would be smaller and teams could decide a better fit is definitely more important than the small revenue difference.

The solution of a 3 x 20 is that essentially the schools that move form their own division and already have the rivalries and annual games with each other.

So if the SEC expanded with say Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Miami, and Georgia Tech, and the Big 10 expanded with Duke, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Virginia, and the PAC took Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, T.C.U., and Texas Tech the rivalry and familiar foe conditions are met through the additions more than through connections to current conference members.

If say the SEC were permitted to expand to 24 while the PAC & Big 10 remained at 20 then Baylor, West Virginia, Louisville, and perhaps Duke could be accommodated leaving a slot for B.C. in the Big 10. Now the only odd man out is Wake Forest.

But while I'm not advocating for this exact division I use it to illustrate that with large moves the criteria for rivals and familiar foes are met by the moves themselves.

If the powers that be decided a P3 was in the best interest of the majority I agree a little shifting of existing members might come into play. But that's a good topic for another thread. This one is just a thinking exercise so I gave it rules that would approximate how conferences might think through this process, and for fun.
(This post was last modified: 01-02-2018 01:20 PM by JRsec.)
01-02-2018 01:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,442
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 174
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #24
RE: I Have a New Challenging Exercise for You.....
A P3 would be as useless as a P5.
01-02-2018 01:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 199
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 8
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #25
RE: I Have a New Challenging Exercise for You.....
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.
(This post was last modified: 01-02-2018 02:02 PM by Win5002.)
01-02-2018 01:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 734
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 41
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #26
RE: I Have a New Challenging Exercise for You.....
(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
01-02-2018 02:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 567
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 40
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #27
RE: I Have a New Challenging Exercise for You.....
Continuing the process:

Review:
SEC adds UNC, Clemson, OK, OK State (18)
Big 10 adds: ND, Syracuse, Pitt, and Iowa State (18)
PAC adds: SDSU, NM, BYU and Colorado State (16)
ACC adds: West Virginia, Army, Navy and ECU (14)

This leaves the Big 12 with 6 teams: Texas, Tech, TCU, Baylor, Kansas and Kansas St. At this point, Kansas and Kansas St do not have any familiar foes not already in one of the above conferences. This leads me to think again that the PAC would take the remaining Big 12 teams and go to an 18 team conference instead of the teams listed above, but such is the exercise.

The eligible teams for the Big 12:
Rice: 4 teams
SMU: 4 teams
Houston: 4 teams

Take all three to move to a 9 team league.

The AAC:
Has lost: ECU, Navy, SMU, and Houston

Since some of the remaining teams are new to FBS, I am taking the most common opponents even if below 20. So for instance, UCF hasn't played anyone 20 times yet, but they have played 7 OOC opponents 7+ times in their history.

Schools that fit the criteria:
Marshall 3
UAB 4
Akron 2
Buffalo 3
USM 5
Toledo 2
North Texas 3
Louisiana-Lafayette 3
Louisiana Tech 3
UTEP 2

AAC takes: Marshall, UAB, USM, North Texas.

MWC: has lost: Colorado State, New Mexico, and SDSU

Eligible candidates:
Idaho 8
NMSU 7
UTEP 6
LT 6

MWC takes UTEP and stops.

C-USA:
Lost Marshall, North Texas, Southern Miss, UAB, Rice and UTEP

Eligible candidates:
(ODU, Charlotte, and UTSA do not have familiar foes yet)
Troy 4
La-M 4
Ark State 4

They take: Ark State and Troy

Sun Belt:
Lost: Ark St, Troy
NO FBS team qualifies. Would have to take FCS teams (don't have statistics)

MAC:
Lost: None
No FBS team qualifies. Would have to take FCS teams.
(This post was last modified: 01-02-2018 06:44 PM by Soobahk40050.)
01-02-2018 02:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 199
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 8
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #28
RE: I Have a New Challenging Exercise for You.....
(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.
01-02-2018 03:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 734
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 41
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #29
RE: I Have a New Challenging Exercise for You.....
(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
01-02-2018 04:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,248
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 777
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #30
RE: I Have a New Challenging Exercise for You.....
I choose the format of 18 schools in 3 divisions. I also choose the option that I've maintained for quite sometime.

SEC:

West: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Central: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee


Tomorrow I will judge everyone else submissions an award Rep. After we do that we will have a vote on the best conference set ups and move on to the Big 10.
01-04-2018 02:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,903
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 73
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #31
RE: I Have a New Challenging Exercise for You.....
Current SEC plus West Virginia and FSU.

West Virginia - Contiguous with Kentucky. Rivals with Kentucky and has ties with South Carolina going back to their Independent days. Scheduled to play Tennessee for the first time to open the 2018 season and it's easy to see that quickly becoming a natural rivalry as well. Expands the map to a new (albeit small) state where it's the only show in town. Gets a piece of the Pittsburgh market and help consolidate the SEC as the conference of Appalachia. Storied tradition, has had numerous top 15 finishes and BCS bowl wins this century. Stability at HC/AD/administration.

FSU - Will be difficult to pull off for various reasons but I'm picking them over Oklahoma because it's an easy case to make. Gain complete control of nearly all of Florida. Tradition and recent success. Facilities are lagging but SEC money will help there. Huge fanbase. Gives SEC 12 of the 24 largest stadiums in the country.

16 teams, no divisions. Top two records meet in Atlanta

9 game conference schedule. 6 permanent opponents, 3 rotating on/off each year. Everyone plays everyone within a 3 year span.

Permanent Opponents -

Alabama- Auburn, LSU, Tennessee, Ole Miss, FSU, TAMU
Arkansas - Missouri, Ole Miss, TAMU, Miss St, LSU, Auburn
Auburn - Alabama, UGA, Miss ST, FSU, UF, Arkansas
Florida - UGA, SC, UT, FSU, Auburn, TAMU
Florida St - UF, Auburn, Miss St, Alabama, UGA, Ole Miss
Georgia - Auburn, UF, SC, WVU, UK, FSU
Kentucky - Missouri, MSU, Vanderbilt, WVU, Tennessee, UGA
LSU - Alabama, Ole Miss, TAMU, Missouri, Arkansas, MSU
Missouri -Arkansas, Kentucky, TAMU, SC, LSU, WVU
Mississippi State -Auburn, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Florida State, Arkansas, LSU
Ole Miss - Arkansas. LSU, MSU, Alabama, Vandy, FSU
South Carolina- UF, UGA, Vandy, UT, WVU, Missouri
Tennessee - Alabama, UF, Vandy, SC, WVU, Kentucky
Texas A&M -Arkansas, LSU, Missouri, Vandy, Alabama, Florida
Vanderbilt - Kentucky, SC, UT, Ole Miss, WVU, TAMU
West Virginia - SC, Kentucky, UT, UGA, Vandy, Missouri
01-04-2018 10:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 199
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 8
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #32
RE: I Have a New Challenging Exercise for You.....
(01-02-2018 01:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 01:03 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  IN a P3 of 60 or 63 I don't think you can find reasonable grouping of conferences where each new team maintains an existing rivalry with 2 of the EXISTING members of the new conference outside of the 1st conference selected. For instance I can pick 6 with established rivalries for the SEC but you won't be able to do that with the new teams the B1G picks next. The B1G is going to go with ND, NC, Duke, Va., Va. Tech and Pitt or Syracuse. Oustide of ND all of those schools really only have rivalries or a history with Maryland. So unless only the SEC in a P3 has to have existing rivalries I don't think you can make it work.

Also, in a P3 where you have 3 pretty equal leagues I think a little horse trading could make sense. I don't know if that would still be against the rules because the SEC & B1G would theoretically have their advantage cut into by consolidating to 3 leagues. There could still be a money difference but it would be smaller and teams could decide a better fit is definitely more important than the small revenue difference.

The solution of a 3 x 20 is that essentially the schools that move form their own division and already have the rivalries and annual games with each other.

So if the SEC expanded with say Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Miami, and Georgia Tech, and the Big 10 expanded with Duke, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Virginia, and the PAC took Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, T.C.U., and Texas Tech the rivalry and familiar foe conditions are met through the additions more than through connections to current conference members.

If say the SEC were permitted to expand to 24 while the PAC & Big 10 remained at 20 then Baylor, West Virginia, Louisville, and perhaps Duke could be accommodated leaving a slot for B.C. in the Big 10. Now the only odd man out is Wake Forest.

But while I'm not advocating for this exact division I use it to illustrate that with large moves the criteria for rivals and familiar foes are met by the moves themselves.

If the powers that be decided a P3 was in the best interest of the majority I agree a little shifting of existing members might come into play. But that's a good topic for another thread. This one is just a thinking exercise so I gave it rules that would approximate how conferences might think through this process, and for fun.

If there was an equal P3, there actually would be a few ways to make a decent playoff.
1. CCG's could be removed and do a playoff of 12, obviously 4 teams receive a bye first round. CCG's do well but the increased playoff games would be can't miss tv for cfb fans and make up for it. I can watch it all day Saturday and I don't care too tune in to very many bowl games at all because they are meaningless as well as played a month after the season so you get a lousy product.
2.Each league gets 4 playoff teams and each league can do a single set of division standings or break into 4 divisions and let each division winner advance. I certainly like a single set of standings because in a league of that size, It allows for more flexibility in scheduling and scheduling better games, because some teams in these expanded leagues will not need to play each other or very rarely.
3. you can also go 16, where the top 5 go each year. The 16th spot could be rotated each year among the leagues or if there is a G5 and they still play P3 schools, the highest ranked G5 could be the 16th.

This would work a lot better if the P3 leagues negotiated tv as one entity like the NFL, NBA, and MLB. Hopefully that way we could place teams that would benefit the sport overall and in a balanced fashion. I think the P3 product would be healthier in the long run if this is adopted. If the P3/P4 tries to make the leagues too lopsided or cut too many of the markets out I believe the sport of cfb will suffer in the long run. If you cut too many schools or teams, the P3/P4 product will lose its appeal to the general population.
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2018 03:18 PM by Win5002.)
01-11-2018 03:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 199
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 8
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #33
RE: I Have a New Challenging Exercise for You.....
JRSEC, did you forget to do your grading?
01-11-2018 03:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,248
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 777
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #34
RE: I Have a New Challenging Exercise for You.....
(01-11-2018 03:18 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  JRSEC, did you forget to do your grading?

Did you not see your rep points go up? I awarded points for a variety of reasons for this exercise. You scored.
01-11-2018 03:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 199
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 8
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #35
RE: I Have a New Challenging Exercise for You.....
(01-11-2018 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 03:18 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  JRSEC, did you forget to do your grading?

Did you not see your rep points go up? I awarded points for a variety of reasons for this exercise. You scored.

My bad, I didn't look at it and have not on reputation points before, I was thinking you would outline it in a post. Out of curiosity which one did you pick as the best option? If you were going to share with people.
01-11-2018 03:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,248
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 777
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #36
RE: I Have a New Challenging Exercise for You.....
(01-11-2018 03:41 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 03:18 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  JRSEC, did you forget to do your grading?

Did you not see your rep points go up? I awarded points for a variety of reasons for this exercise. You scored.

My bad, I didn't look at it and have not on reputation points before, I was thinking you would outline it in a post. Out of curiosity which one did you pick as the best option? If you were going to share with people.

I gave out one for best original thinking, one for sound logic, and one for the best arrangement. Those were to Soobahk40050, Gamecock and Murrdcu.

I found that by giving latitude people approached it from a variety of vantage points and I thought all had merit. Sorry X you were the only one that didn't adhere to the rules about not moving existing conference members.
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2018 05:23 PM by JRsec.)
01-11-2018 05:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,442
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 174
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #37
RE: I Have a New Challenging Exercise for You.....
(01-11-2018 05:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 03:41 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 03:18 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  JRSEC, did you forget to do your grading?

Did you not see your rep points go up? I awarded points for a variety of reasons for this exercise. You scored.

My bad, I didn't look at it and have not on reputation points before, I was thinking you would outline it in a post. Out of curiosity which one did you pick as the best option? If you were going to share with people.

I gave out one for best original thinking, one for sound logic, and one for the best arrangement. Those were to Soobahk40050, Gamecock and Murrdcu.

I found that by giving latitude people approached it from a variety of vantage points and I thought all had merit. Sorry X you were the only one that didn't adhere to the rules about not moving existing conference members.

That was the point JR, realignment has no rules.
01-11-2018 07:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 567
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 40
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #38
RE: I Have a New Challenging Exercise for You.....
(01-11-2018 05:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 03:41 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 03:18 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  JRSEC, did you forget to do your grading?

Did you not see your rep points go up? I awarded points for a variety of reasons for this exercise. You scored.

My bad, I didn't look at it and have not on reputation points before, I was thinking you would outline it in a post. Out of curiosity which one did you pick as the best option? If you were going to share with people.

I gave out one for best original thinking, one for sound logic, and one for the best arrangement. Those were to Soobahk40050, Gamecock and Murrdcu.

I found that by giving latitude people approached it from a variety of vantage points and I thought all had merit. Sorry X you were the only one that didn't adhere to the rules about not moving existing conference members.

Thanks for the prompt on this one. In the OP you suggested we would.move on to the Big 10. Is that still in the plans? Ive already posted my thoughts but the further downstream I got the weirder it got so I'd love to see others "downstream" conferences too.
01-12-2018 12:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,248
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 777
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #39
RE: I Have a New Challenging Exercise for You.....
(01-12-2018 12:43 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 05:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 03:41 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 03:18 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  JRSEC, did you forget to do your grading?

Did you not see your rep points go up? I awarded points for a variety of reasons for this exercise. You scored.

My bad, I didn't look at it and have not on reputation points before, I was thinking you would outline it in a post. Out of curiosity which one did you pick as the best option? If you were going to share with people.

I gave out one for best original thinking, one for sound logic, and one for the best arrangement. Those were to Soobahk40050, Gamecock and Murrdcu.

I found that by giving latitude people approached it from a variety of vantage points and I thought all had merit. Sorry X you were the only one that didn't adhere to the rules about not moving existing conference members.

Thanks for the prompt on this one. In the OP you suggested we would.move on to the Big 10. Is that still in the plans? Ive already posted my thoughts but the further downstream I got the weirder it got so I'd love to see others "downstream" conferences too.

Okay Let's now see the layouts on the Big 10. But, please repost yours so we can keep the different conferences separate.

********************************************************************

Post your Big 10 layouts immediately following this post!
01-12-2018 02:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,447
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 76
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #40
RE: I Have a New Challenging Exercise for You.....
(01-04-2018 02:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I choose the format of 18 schools in 3 divisions. I also choose the option that I've maintained for quite sometime.

SEC:

West: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Central: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee


Tomorrow I will judge everyone else submissions an award Rep. After we do that we will have a vote on the best conference set ups and move on to the Big 10.

(01-12-2018 12:43 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 05:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 03:41 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 03:18 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  JRSEC, did you forget to do your grading?

Did you not see your rep points go up? I awarded points for a variety of reasons for this exercise. You scored.

My bad, I didn't look at it and have not on reputation points before, I was thinking you would outline it in a post. Out of curiosity which one did you pick as the best option? If you were going to share with people.

I gave out one for best original thinking, one for sound logic, and one for the best arrangement. Those were to Soobahk40050, Gamecock and Murrdcu.

I found that by giving latitude people approached it from a variety of vantage points and I thought all had merit. Sorry X you were the only one that didn't adhere to the rules about not moving existing conference members.

Thanks for the prompt on this one. In the OP you suggested we would.move on to the Big 10. Is that still in the plans? Ive already posted my thoughts but the further downstream I got the weirder it got so I'd love to see others "downstream" conferences too.

I’m gonna say the Big Ten adds Kansas as I have the sec offering both bedlam rivals to secure the Norman boys.

I don’t really see a match outside of KU the B1G could add outside of an AAC School unless some of the PAC schools become willing to join them.

Big West: Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Big Central: Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan State
Big East: Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan

Conference semifinals approved as conference commissioners dislike seeing same conference finalists in CFP.
01-12-2018 02:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.