(05-11-2022 08:43 PM)esayem Wrote:  Looks like you have an issue in the SEC with Texas/Florida/Arkansas

Whoops!

(05-11-2022 07:47 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Can’t wait to see the the 4 way tie for first place and the anger that will follow.
They will go back to divisions sooner or later.

That 4-way tie is very unlikely.

There are two kinds of ties, in that league, that would be "sticky ties" -- can't be resolved by head-to head results, and difficult to break without resorting to things like who beat the best team not involved in the tie, or point differential, or (least legitimately) the CFP or computer ranking of the teams. One of those kinds of ties is a 2-way tie between teams that didn't play each other. The other is a 3-way tie in which the 3 teams were each 1-1 against the other two.

A 3-way tie of that type is less likely in a 14-team league with 8 conference games, because some of the possible 3-way ties would involve teams that didn't play a "3-way round robin", and those ties would be easily breakable. In contrast, in a league with a full round robin, every 3-way tie has the possibility of all three being 1-1 in the "3-way round robin".

The 2-way tie between teams that didn't play each other is more likely in the ACC and the most likely "sticky tie" that is possible. A 2-way tie for first is no big deal, but a 2-way tie for second would be, well, sticky. A 14-team league with 8 conference games is going to have a greater likelihood of this:

12 teams, 8 conf. games: Each team misses 3 conference mates every season.
12 teams, 9 conf. games: Each team misses 2 conference mates every season.
14 teams, 8 conf. games: Each team misses 5 conference mates every season.
14 teams, 9 conf. games: Each team misses 4 conference mates every season.

Etc., etc.

If the ACC stays with 8 conference games, each team in a 2-way tie would have a 5/13 or 38.5% chance that it didn't play the other team in the tie. Compare that with, say, the Pac-12 if they stay with 9 conference games -- there, each team in a 2-way tie would have a 2/11 or 22.2% chance that it didn't play the other team in the tie.

Oh, and if the SEC-16 plays 8 conference games with no divisions, and two teams tie with the same conference record, those teams will have a 46.7% chance of not having played each other.

(05-11-2022 08:37 PM)BigEastMike Wrote:  If all the P5 did this, this is how it should look IMHO.

ACC:

BC - Cuse, Miami, Pitt
Clemson - FSU, GT, NC St
Duke - UNC, Wake, GT
Georgia Tech - FSU, Clemson, Duke
Florida St - Miami, Clemson, GT
Louisville - Pitt, Cuse, VT
Miami - FSU, VT, BC
NC State - UNC, Clemson, Wake
Pitt - BC, Cuse, Louisville
Syracuse - Pitt, BC, Louisville
UNC - Duke, UVA, NC St
Virginia - UNC, VT, Wake
Virginia Tech - UVA, Miami, Louisville
Wake Forest - Duke, UVA, NC State

Big Ten:

Illinois - NW, Indiana, Purdue
Indiana - Illinois, Purdue, Maryland
Iowa - Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Maryland - PSU, Rutgers, Indiana
Michigan - OSU, MSU, Minnesota
Michigan State - OSU, UM, PSU
Minnesota - Iowa, Wisconsin, UM
Nebraska - Iowa, NW, Wisconsin
Northwestern - Illinois, Purdue, Nebraska
Ohio State - UM, MSU, Rutgers
Penn State - Rutgers, Maryland, MSU
Purdue - Indiana, Illinois, NW
Rutgers - Maryland, PSU, OSU
Wisconsin - Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota

Big XII: (Future)

Baylor - TCU, Houston, TTech
BYU - TTech, Kansas, WVU
Cincinatti - WVU, UCF, ISU
Houston - TCU, Baylor, OSU
Iowa State - KU, KSU, Cincinatti
Kansas - KSU, ISU, BYU
Kansas State - KU, ISU, UCF
Oklahoma State - TCU, Houston, TTech
TCU - Baylor, Houston, OSU
Texas Tech - BYU, Baylor, OSU
UCF - Cincinatti, WVU, KSU
West Virginia - Cincinatti, UCF, BYU

Pac-12:

Arizona- ASU, Colorado, Utah
Arizona State - Arizona, Colorado, Utah
Cal - Stanford, USC, UCLA
Colorado - Arizona, ASU, Utah
Oregon - OSU, WSU, Washington
Oregon State - Oregon, WSU, Washington
Stanford - Cal, USC, UCLA
UCLA - USC, Cal, Stanford
USC - UCLA, Cal, Stanford
Utah - Arizona, ASU, Colorado
Washington - WSU, Oregon, OSU
Washington State - Washington, OSU, Oregon

SEC: (Future)

Alabama - Auburn, Tennessee, LSU
Arkansas - Mizz, A&M, Texas
Auburn - Bama, Georgia, MSU
Florida - Georgia, Texas, Tennessee
Georgia - Florida, Auburn, USC
Kentucky - Tennessee, Vandy, USC
LSU - Bama, Ole Miss, MSU
Mississippi State - Ole Miss, LSU, Auburn
Missouri - Arkansas, OU, Kentucky
Oklahoma - Texas, A&M, Mizz
Ole Miss - MSU, LSU, Vandy
South Carolina - Vandy, Kentucky, UGA
Tennessee - Florida, Kentucky, Bama
Texas - A&M, OU, Florida
Texas A&M - Texas, Arkansas, OU
Vanderbilt - USC, Kentucky, Ole Miss

SEC Texas-Arkansas and Missouri-Kentucky are only on one school's list.
LSU is going to want A&M or Texas instead of MSU.
Texas probably would like Arkansas to replace Florida.
So maybe Florida-South Carolina and Kentucky-Missouri (FL dropping Texas, S. Carolina/UK dropped). Texas-Arkansas. LSU-A&M. Arkansas-Miss. St. (TX-FL, LSU-MSU, A&M-Ark dropped)

(05-11-2022 08:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  SEC Texas-Arkansas and Missouri-Kentucky are only on one school's list.
LSU is going to want A&M or Texas instead of MSU.
Texas probably would like Arkansas to replace Florida.
So maybe Florida-South Carolina and Kentucky-Missouri (FL dropping Texas, S. Carolina/UK dropped). Texas-Arkansas. LSU-A&M. Arkansas-Miss. St. (TX-FL, LSU-MSU, A&M-Ark dropped)

Been updated

(05-11-2022 08:51 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 07:47 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Can’t wait to see the the 4 way tie for first place and the anger that will follow.
They will go back to divisions sooner or later.

That 4-way tie is very unlikely.

There are two kinds of ties, in that league, that would be "sticky ties" -- can't be resolved by head-to head results, and difficult to break without resorting to things like who beat the best team not involved in the tie, or point differential, or (least legitimately) the CFP or computer ranking of the teams. One of those kinds of ties is a 2-way tie between teams that didn't play each other. The other is a 3-way tie in which the 3 teams were each 1-1 against the other two.

A 3-way tie of that type is less likely in a 14-team league with 8 conference games, because some of the possible 3-way ties would involve teams that didn't play a "3-way round robin", and those ties would be easily breakable. In contrast, in a league with a full round robin, every 3-way tie has the possibility of all three being 1-1 in the "3-way round robin".

The 2-way tie between teams that didn't play each other is more likely in the ACC and the most likely "sticky tie" that is possible. A 2-way tie for first is no big deal, but a 2-way tie for second would be, well, sticky. A 14-team league with 8 conference games is going to have a greater likelihood of this:

12 teams, 8 conf. games: Each team misses 3 conference mates every season.
12 teams, 9 conf. games: Each team misses 2 conference mates every season.
14 teams, 8 conf. games: Each team misses 5 conference mates every season.
14 teams, 9 conf. games: Each team misses 4 conference mates every season.

Etc., etc.

If the ACC stays with 8 conference games, each team in a 2-way tie would have a 5/13 or 38.5% chance that it didn't play the other team in the tie. Compare that with, say, the Pac-12 if they stay with 9 conference games -- there, each team in a 2-way tie would have a 2/11 or 22.2% chance that it didn't play the other team in the tie.

Oh, and if the SEC-16 plays 8 conference games with no divisions, and two teams tie with the same conference record, those teams will have a 46.7% chance of not having played each other.

I feel pretty confident that the ACC will add a 9th conference game if it will give them leverage in trying to renegotiate with ESPN. With the SEC, adding a 9th league game could be worth nine-figures from ESPN, plus it sets up a 3-6-6 rotation nicely.

9 games, 1 permanent rival.

This will result in playing the other 12 two out of three seasons.

Why are their standings, and why is a round-robin considered ideal?

Answer: Because schedules are the same and we can compare overall performance.

When are divisions used?

Answer: When it is impossible to play a full round-robin, round-robins can be played within a division, and the division winners can play in a championship game.

Any problems with divisions?

Answer: The two best teams may be in the same division, and more frequent games against division rivals means less frequent games against inter-divisional rivals. In extreme cases it can be like the schools are in different conferences.

So let's get rid of divisions, but schedule annual games against lots of teams. Any problems with that?

Answer: The standings are less meaningful since teams are playing different opponents.

What is the solution?

Answer: Have few annual opponents. This means that you will play all conference-mates more regularly, and increase the commonality of playing all schools.

For example with a 9-game schedule and one annual game, the other schools will be played 2 out of 3 seasons, ensuring one home game every three years, and one away game every three years. There will be 2/3 chance that tied teams will have played each other. Alumni who have moved from Boston to Atlanta or Miami to Pittsburgh will be able to see their school every three years. And this will maximize common opponents in other cases.

It is the best compromise.

(05-11-2022 09:09 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 08:51 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 07:47 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Can’t wait to see the the 4 way tie for first place and the anger that will follow.
They will go back to divisions sooner or later.

That 4-way tie is very unlikely.

There are two kinds of ties, in that league, that would be "sticky ties" -- can't be resolved by head-to head results, and difficult to break without resorting to things like who beat the best team not involved in the tie, or point differential, or (least legitimately) the CFP or computer ranking of the teams. One of those kinds of ties is a 2-way tie between teams that didn't play each other. The other is a 3-way tie in which the 3 teams were each 1-1 against the other two.

A 3-way tie of that type is less likely in a 14-team league with 8 conference games, because some of the possible 3-way ties would involve teams that didn't play a "3-way round robin", and those ties would be easily breakable. In contrast, in a league with a full round robin, every 3-way tie has the possibility of all three being 1-1 in the "3-way round robin".

The 2-way tie between teams that didn't play each other is more likely in the ACC and the most likely "sticky tie" that is possible. A 2-way tie for first is no big deal, but a 2-way tie for second would be, well, sticky. A 14-team league with 8 conference games is going to have a greater likelihood of this:

12 teams, 8 conf. games: Each team misses 3 conference mates every season.
12 teams, 9 conf. games: Each team misses 2 conference mates every season.
14 teams, 8 conf. games: Each team misses 5 conference mates every season.
14 teams, 9 conf. games: Each team misses 4 conference mates every season.

Etc., etc.

If the ACC stays with 8 conference games, each team in a 2-way tie would have a 5/13 or 38.5% chance that it didn't play the other team in the tie. Compare that with, say, the Pac-12 if they stay with 9 conference games -- there, each team in a 2-way tie would have a 2/11 or 22.2% chance that it didn't play the other team in the tie.

Oh, and if the SEC-16 plays 8 conference games with no divisions, and two teams tie with the same conference record, those teams will have a 46.7% chance of not having played each other.

I feel pretty confident that the ACC will add a 9th conference game if it will give them leverage in trying to renegotiate with ESPN. With the SEC, adding a 9th league game could be worth nine-figures from ESPN, plus it sets up a 3-6-6 rotation nicely.

Playing 9 conference games with no divisions would reduce the likelihood of a tie between two teams that didn't play to 30.8% for the ACC and exactly 40.0% for the SEC.

(05-11-2022 12:08 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  Wake and UNC care enough about their rivalry to schedule themselves OOC. It would be nice if that could be recognized by whoever puts this together.

Not necessary with this model. Also not necessary if you cycle 6 games with 3+6+6 in the SEC per say. You'd play everyone often enough.

My take here is the rivalries are so weak that it's a challenge finding three fitting opponents for every team rather than the angst of cutting some key annual rivalries forever. But biannually (or potential CCG matchups vs the 5 you didn't play) is the next best thing.

(05-11-2022 10:04 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 12:08 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  Wake and UNC care enough about their rivalry to schedule themselves OOC. It would be nice if that could be recognized by whoever puts this together.

Not necessary with this model. Also not necessary if you cycle 6 games with 3+6+6 in the SEC per say. You'd play everyone often enough.

My take here is the rivalries are so weak that it's a challenge finding three fitting opponents for every team rather than the angst of cutting some key annual rivalries forever. But biannually (or potential CCG matchups vs the 5 you didn't play) is the next best thing.

If the ACC drops divisions and goes to 9 games Carolina could play the 3 other NC schools, Virginia, and one of Miami, GT, or FSU annually, and then rotate through 4 of the other 8 in alternating years. As for the B1G, there will be no bigger winners in all of CFB than Maryland, Rutgers, and Indiana if and when the league ditches the East-West divisions for a 5-4-4 set up for a 9 game conference slate.

(05-11-2022 09:12 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  The standings are less meaningful since teams are playing different opponents.

What is the solution?

Answer: Have few annual opponents. This means that you will play all conference-mates more regularly, and increase the commonality of playing all schools.

Number of annual opponents has 0 impact on the “commonality” of 2 schools’ schedules. Everyone will still skip 5 schools in a given year. You can probably jigger it so any 2 teams have 5 common opponents, like a traditional 12-team conference with divisions. No need to drop the number of annual opponents to 1.

Curious if this might open the door for WVU.

(05-11-2022 07:47 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 07:39 PM)goofus Wrote:  You all are forgetting the part where they integrate Notre Dame into the official rotation of conference games and Notre Dame becomes eligible for the CCG, but notre dame only has to play 6 conference games while everybody else has to play 8.

Good point about Notre Dame. The ACC Commissioner threw out the 3/5-5 setup so they didn’t consider the Irish either, apparently.

Lol, that "part" was always fantasy (ACC) or irrational concern (Big Ten).

It was never something that ND wanted or considered.

(05-11-2022 07:47 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Can’t wait to see the the 4 way tie for first place and the anger that will follow.
They will go back to divisions sooner or later.

I’m leaning this way, too. I’m not surprised the ACC is trying this again. And COVID kinda opened the door on house-rules for CCG determination. You couple the single-line/division-less component with some tweaking of the CCG eligibility (that could come down to deferring to polls), and, you get multiple regular season champs recognized by schools, but recognized conference champs elsewhere.

It will work, and then it won’t.

(05-12-2022 05:58 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 07:47 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 07:39 PM)goofus Wrote:  You all are forgetting the part where they integrate Notre Dame into the official rotation of conference games and Notre Dame becomes eligible for the CCG, but notre dame only has to play 6 conference games while everybody else has to play 8.

Good point about Notre Dame. The ACC Commissioner threw out the 3/5-5 setup so they didn’t consider the Irish either, apparently.

Lol, that "part" was always fantasy (ACC) or irrational concern (Big Ten).

It was never something that ND wanted or considered.

They obviously considered it to the point of if they join a football conference (for whatever reason) it would be the ACC. It’s in writing.

Nobody forced ND to agree to that. They did because the ACC is the best home for their Olympic sports.

(05-11-2022 07:47 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 07:39 PM)goofus Wrote:  You all are forgetting the part where they integrate Notre Dame into the official rotation of conference games and Notre Dame becomes eligible for the CCG, but notre dame only has to play 6 conference games while everybody else has to play 8.

Good point about Notre Dame. The ACC Commissioner threw out the 3/5-5 setup so they didn’t consider the Irish either, apparently.

(05-12-2022 06:16 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 05:58 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 07:47 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 07:39 PM)goofus Wrote:  You all are forgetting the part where they integrate Notre Dame into the official rotation of conference games and Notre Dame becomes eligible for the CCG, but notre dame only has to play 6 conference games while everybody else has to play 8.

Good point about Notre Dame. The ACC Commissioner threw out the 3/5-5 setup so they didn’t consider the Irish either, apparently.

Lol, that "part" was always fantasy (ACC) or irrational concern (Big Ten).

It was never something that ND wanted or considered.

They obviously considered it to the point of if they join a football conference (for whatever reason) it would be the ACC. It’s in writing.

Nobody forced ND to agree to that. They did because the ACC is the best home for their Olympic sports.

That is full membership and a contract never intended to be fulfilled by ND.

Its like an "if I break up with my wife, I will marry you" type promise made by someone with no intentions of doing either.

But, that is irrelevant.

We are talking about the fantasy of ND not joining in full, but engaging in a scheme to play 6 conference game and be eligible for the ACC Championship Game.

There is exactly zero evidence that ND wanted that at all or would participate in that at all.

Where is the noise from ND to 1) join the ACC in full, or more relevantly, 2) participate in this 6 game scheme ??

When does ND start playing that mythical sixth ACC game per year ? Let me know.

Provide one link from ND or ACC sources saying that ND was ever discussing or agreeing to a 6th ACC game.

Name one occasion wherein ND and/or the ACC were in discussions for ND to play in the ACC Championship game as a non-member or partial member.

That was all fantasy.

It has nothing at all to do with that other contract. Zero relevance.

I'm biased but I would want both Illinois and Penn State to play Ohio State permanently. I'm pretty sure the networks would want Ohio State-Penn State and they do border each other. Illinois could be a stretch but Illibuck is a thing and assuming Michigan and Penn State are two of OSU's rivals, they need a cupcake so why not us?

Full Biased Penn State/Illinois version of Big Ten permanent rivals: https://csnbbs.com/newthread.php?fid=167

(05-12-2022 06:29 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I'm biased but I would want both Illinois and Penn State to play Ohio State permanently. I'm pretty sure the networks would want Ohio State-Penn State and they do border each other. Illinois could be a stretch but Illibuck is a thing and assuming Michigan and Penn State are two of OSU's rivals, they need a cupcake so why not us?

Full Biased Penn State/Illinois version of Big Ten permanent rivals: https://csnbbs.com/newthread.php?fid=167

The problem with the B1G is that RU and Maryland are still on islands in some respect, and there is not enough of a trifecta there to give them three permanent rivals each without taking away some from the Midwest schools. I just think the divisions work in the B1G. OSU vs UN doesn't really move the needle any longer. It's all about the B1G East matchups, with some bellwethers out west to keep that division respectable.

I think PSU and Nebraska should have something annually. Some good bones for a permanent rivalry.

With the ACC, wouldn’t the low-hanging fruit be some of those older rivalries between former Big East schools and other eastern independents? I would think Pitt would see some protection around the BC, ‘Cuse, and VT cluster; maybe UMFL and UL, but the first three for sure. That cluster of Miami, FSU, amd UL have some history, too, I thought?

(05-11-2022 08:23 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Virginia isn’t going to get stuck as the only pre-1990 ACC member saddled with two former Big East schools annually. They have to play VPI and Carolina; the third permanent opponent would ideally be GT for recruiting and the long-standing rivalry, but given the FSU leadership’s comments I think it could end up being the Noles. Return the Jefferson-Eppes Trophy game to an annual affair.

Recruiting for you, perhaps. Long-standing rivalry?! George O'Leary has been gone for nearly 2 decades now. George Welsh has been gone even longer.

(05-12-2022 07:51 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 06:29 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I'm biased but I would want both Illinois and Penn State to play Ohio State permanently. I'm pretty sure the networks would want Ohio State-Penn State and they do border each other. Illinois could be a stretch but Illibuck is a thing and assuming Michigan and Penn State are two of OSU's rivals, they need a cupcake so why not us?

Full Biased Penn State/Illinois version of Big Ten permanent rivals: https://csnbbs.com/newthread.php?fid=167

The problem with the B1G is that RU and Maryland are still on islands in some respect, and there is not enough of a trifecta there to give them three permanent rivals each without taking away some from the Midwest schools. I just think the divisions work in the B1G. OSU vs UN doesn't really move the needle any longer. It's all about the B1G East matchups, with some bellwethers out west to keep that division respectable.

That's actually the problem with the divisional setup in the Big Ten - it's become all about the Big Ten East from a national perspective. At the same time, the DNA of the way Big Ten schools play each other is much different than, say, the SEC. In the Big Ten, you have one uber-rival and maybe a handful of schools have a secondary rival, but the entire league really had a super-high familiarity with each other (even if they didn't rise to rival status). Prior to the expansion of the past decade, the Big Ten schools simply all played each other a LOT with very infrequent breaks for 100 years. This is in contrast with the SEC where schools will often list off 3 or 4 schools as uber-rivals but then don't really care whatsoever about how much they play everyone else in the league (which is how they've been able to have a setup where conference members could go 4 to 6 years without playing each other for so long).

I honestly believe setting up 3 protected rivals for each Big Ten school is pretty easy and logical:

Western Pod - Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Illiana Pod - Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Great Lakes Mini-Pod - Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Eastern Pod - Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland

The Western and Illiana teams all play their respective pod members annually.

Each of the Great Lakes and Eastern Pod teams have one crossover rival:

Ohio State - Penn State
Michigan - Rutgers
Michigan State - Maryland

Note that OSU-PSU has become the second biggest annual game in the Big Ten after Michigan-OSU, so that's a 100% must have protected game for the Big Ten. Michigan's largest alumni base and source of current students outside of Detroit and Chicago is located in NYC, so they're going to have a strong preference for Rutgers. That leaves Michigan State - Maryland, which is admittedly just matching up the last two schools standing. However, that's really the only matchup that is an outlier. Otherwise, this setup has every single key rivalry protected and keeps geographically contiguous schools together. While I'd love Illinois to play Ohio State annually again, once you start trying to mix it up differently, you start getting more MSU-Maryland-type games, which simply isn't worth it for non-high priority games from a conference perspective.

With 9 conference games per year, this setup allows all non-rival/pod schools to play each other 6 out of every 10 years with never having more than a 2-year break. That gets it back much closer to the super-high tightness between all Big Ten schools again that's similar to the pre-expansion era.

My motto has always been K.I.S.S. when it comes to divisional and pod alignments.