Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

[TheGamingChef]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

But then you have a schedule that's very static, and you go very long periods of time without playing certain teams. In this formula, you are guaranteed to play every team every other year, and won't go more than 4 years without visiting a certain venue.

I think it'd be cool to have the top 2 pod winners play for the conference title, and have #3 and #4 play each other on, like a Thursday night before the Conference Championship. I don't know if that's really feasible, but I think it'd be kinda cool.

I know a lot of people are upset about the rivalries that will be lost, and that's totally understandable. But I'm excited for the new rivalries we might see in a potential Pac 16 - Texas vs. USC every other year? Sign me up. Oklahoma vs. Oregon? Sweet!

That schedule isn't static at all. Take UT for an example. They play OU/OSU/Tech every year. Then two out of every pod. So for example next year let's say they get Washington at home and Oregon State on the road for their NW pod games. The following year they get Oregon at home and Washington State on the road. Year after that, it's Oregon State at home and Washington on the road. Finally, Wazzu at home and a trip to Autzen. Then repeat.

Speaking of Pac-16 pods, it will be interesting how they're set up. The only way to guarantee everyone a game in California every year is to stack those four schools into one pod and then use the 3/2/2/2 scheduling system. You'd have the WA and OR schools in one, the CA schools in one, the four Big 12 OK/TX schools in one, and then Utah/Colorado/AZ schools in one.

EDIT: Misread, so this is more of an explanation of DonkeyJote and a reply to Kodiak rather than a reply to DonkeyJote

[TheGamingChef]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

I know a lot of people are upset about the rivalries that will be lost, and that's totally understandable. But I'm excited for the new rivalries we might see in a potential Pac 16 - Texas vs. USC every other year? Sign me up. Oklahoma vs. Oregon? Sweet!

It's amazing to me how quickly rivalries that are literally 100+ years old can be tossed out in such a cavalier manner, almost as an afterthought. It kills me to think Iowa State will not be playing Nebraska this year, a rivalry that deeply divides my own family. But to each his own I suppose

[kodiak]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

But then you have a schedule that's very static, and you go very long periods of time without playing certain teams. In this formula, you are guaranteed to play every team every other year, and won't go more than 4 years without visiting a certain venue.

I think it'd be cool to have the top 2 pod winners play for the conference title, and have #3 and #4 play each other on, like a Thursday night before the Conference Championship. I don't know if that's really feasible, but I think it'd be kinda cool.

I know a lot of people are upset about the rivalries that will be lost, and that's totally understandable. But I'm excited for the new rivalries we might see in a potential Pac 16 - Texas vs. USC every other year? Sign me up. Oklahoma vs. Oregon? Sweet!

Oh well as far as waiting forever to play some teams. They wanted super conferences, there are things that have to be given up. It might be more static but at least you have a guaranteed winner of each division. Pods could see all 4 with identical records and still no guarantee that they played each other head to head.

How would you determine who the top 2 pod teams are if say OU, USC, ASU, and Oregon all finished with 9-0 conference records? Without having a "semi final" and final for the conference championship, there is no way to determine who should play.

[TripleCrown9]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

It's amazing to me how quickly rivalries that are literally 100+ years old can be tossed out in such a cavalier manner, almost as an afterthought. It kills me to think Iowa State will not be playing Nebraska this year, a rivalry that deeply divides my own family. But to each his own I suppose

No offense, but I had no idea Iowa State-Nebraska was a rivalry. I mean, they've played over 100 times, and it isn't even listed as a rivalry. If they are rivals, I learned something new today.

[DonkeyJote]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

Oh well as far as waiting forever to play some teams. They wanted super conferences, there are things that have to be given up. It might be more static but at least you have a guaranteed winner of each division. Pods could see all 4 with identical records and still no guarantee that they played each other head to head.

How would you determine who the top 2 pod teams are if say OU, USC, ASU, and Oregon all finished with 9-0 conference records? Without having a "semi final" and final for the conference championship, there is no way to determine who should play.

And how often do you think that's going to happen? That there are 4 teams all capable of going undefeated that just happen to avoid all of the other good teams around them? The odds of that just aren't good. In that scenario, pretty much every other team in the conference is going to have 3 wins a piece. If it gets to the point where the conference is that top heavy, a possible 4-way tie is the least of their concerns. But you go with tiebreakers. Record vs. common opponents, point differential, etc. I'd rather have a more interesting conference schedule, and play everyone in the conference regularly, than be protected in the off chance a bunch of teams go undefeated while missing all of the other good teams (which would be just poor scheduling as well). And splitting into two 8 team divisions is something that is going to be strongly contested by at least three schools (Arizona, ASU, and Colorado) that don't want to be stuck in a Texas conference. I'd rather give up divisional round-robin scheduling than actually getting to see Texas play the schools in their new conference.


That being said, this is far from a done deal. Texas could still back out. I think Oklahoma is going, but I'm not so sure about Texas yet. I could still see them going to the ACC or Big Ten. Apparently, the Big 12 was targeting Pitt, though, and that's a big part of why we're hearing Texas to the Pac getting serious - Oklahoma isn't confident in the Big 12's ability to effectively replace A&M, and Texas isn't going to stick around a conference without them, especially if the Pac 12 will let them keep the Longhorn Network, which is what made the deal fall through last summer.

[kodiak]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

And how often do you think that's going to happen? That there are 4 teams all capable of going undefeated that just happen to avoid all of the other good teams around them? The odds of that just aren't good. In that scenario, pretty much every other team in the conference is going to have 3 wins a piece. If it gets to the point where the conference is that top heavy, a possible 4-way tie is the least of their concerns. But you go with tiebreakers. Record vs. common opponents, point differential, etc. I'd rather have a more interesting conference schedule, and play everyone in the conference regularly, than be protected in the off chance a bunch of teams go undefeated while missing all of the other good teams (which would be just poor scheduling as well). And splitting into two 8 team divisions is something that is going to be strongly contested by at least three schools (Arizona, ASU, and Colorado) that don't want to be stuck in a Texas conference. I'd rather give up divisional round-robin scheduling than actually getting to see Texas play the schools in their new conference.


That being said, this is far from a done deal. Texas could still back out. I think Oklahoma is going, but I'm not so sure about Texas yet. I could still see them going to the ACC or Big Ten. Apparently, the Big 12 was targeting Pitt, though, and that's a big part of why we're hearing Texas to the Pac getting serious - Oklahoma isn't confident in the Big 12's ability to effectively replace A&M, and Texas isn't going to stick around a conference without them, especially if the Pac 12 will let them keep the Longhorn Network, which is what made the deal fall through last summer.

Point differential should never be a tie breaker unless they cap the maximum margin of victory at 21 or 28. No need to run up the score.

I will say this about the pod system though, it does give more leeway in case it ever got to where Division A was by far the more dominant division and Division A 2nd place is 8-1 and Division B 1st place is 6-3 with a loss to Division A 2nd.

If they do use the pod system following this potential setup(seen this propsed), then here is how I would set it up when you factor the current powers(assuming Stanford stays relevant post Luck)

CA Pod..................AZ/CO/UT Pod................TX/OU Pod...........OR/WA
CAL.......................Arizona................. ........Oklahoma............Oregon
Stanford.................Arizona St....................Oklahoma St........Oregon St
UCLA.....................Colorado................. ......Texas................Washington
USC.......................Utah.................... ........Texas Tech........Wazzou

So USC, Stanford, ASU, Utah, Texas, OU, Oregon, and Washington would be most likely to finish 1-2 in their respective pods. So no school would play both of those teams in the same year, unless they are in your own pod obviously. Make 8 groups, and I would group USC/Cal, Stanford/UCLA, ASU/UT, Arizona/CU, OU/TTU, Texas/Okie St, Oregon/Wazzou, and OR St/Washington together. The USC/Cal group is Pod 1A, UCLA/Stanford is 1B, etc. Have 1A play 2B, 3A, and 4B the first 2 years. 1B would play 2A, 3B, and 4A.

That would at least give some balance to the schedule and keep teams from playing the "top 2" teams, in any given pod, in the same year.

After every 4 years, adjust the groups based on finishing order. Example being AZ had a higher avg finish than UT, move AZ into the group with ASU, etc

[DonkeyJote]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

Point differential should never be a tie breaker unless they cap the maximum margin of victory at 21 or 28. No need to run up the score.

I will say this about the pod system though, it does give more leeway in case it ever got to where Division A was by far the more dominant division and Division A 2nd place is 8-1 and Division B 1st place is 6-3 with a loss to Division A 2nd.

If they do use the pod system following this potential setup(seen this propsed), then here is how I would set it up when you factor the current powers(assuming Stanford stays relevant post Luck)

CA Pod..................AZ/CO/UT Pod................TX/OU Pod...........OR/WA
CAL.......................Arizona................. ........Oklahoma............Oregon
Stanford.................Arizona St....................Oklahoma St........Oregon St
UCLA.....................Colorado................. ......Texas................Washington
USC.......................Utah.................... ........Texas Tech........Wazzou

So USC, Stanford, ASU, Utah, Texas, OU, Oregon, and Washington would be most likely to finish 1-2 in their respective pods. So no school would play both of those teams in the same year, unless they are in your own pod obviously. Make 8 groups, and I would group USC/Cal, Stanford/UCLA, ASU/UT, Arizona/CU, OU/TTU, Texas/Okie St, Oregon/Wazzou, and OR St/Washington together. The USC/Cal group is Pod 1A, UCLA/Stanford is 1B, etc. Have 1A play 2B, 3A, and 4B the first 2 years. 1B would play 2A, 3B, and 4A.

That would at least give some balance to the schedule and keep teams from playing the "top 2" teams, in any given pod, in the same year.

After every 4 years, adjust the groups based on finishing order. Example being AZ had a higher avg finish than UT, move AZ into the group with ASU, etc

I assume that's how they'd do it. It makes the most sense. It also makes keeps everybody relevant in the recruiting hotbeds every year - you will play a school from Southern California and a school from Texas every single year. They aren't going to set up the schedule so USC plays Oklahoma, Texas, ASU, and Oregon all in the same year. It just doesn't make sense to do that. The Pac 12 is unique in that it's team are all grouped in pairs, and that won't really change with the new schools. Every body has a regional rival, except maybe Colorado and Utah, and I think they'll get there. This is a system that I don't think would work for the SEC, ACC, or a 16-team Big Ten. But it makes a ton of sense for the Pac 16.

[He1nousOne1]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

My point exactly! There are 4 AAU schools that make sense for the Big Ten right now: Rutgers, Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa State. Toss in Notre Dame and it's easy to tell who gets left out. Rutgers to the ACC or Missouri to the SEC increases our chances by a huge amount.

Please no one mention Kansas State, lest you get laughed out of the room. They are practically a community college compared to the research behemoths that comprise the Big Ten (and these AAU institutions listed above).

The bigger problem for Iowa State is their market area. It isn't solely theirs and it isnt all that large. They wouldn't bring more money in, they would actually take more from the equally shared pie then they would bring in to it. Texas and ND would bring in more then they would take out from the equal shares so of course they were looked at. Rutgers brings a brand new market so that is why they are so heavily looked at and Missouri brings St. Louis and to an extent Kansas City.

Best chance for Iowa State is the B1G absolutely needing 16 teams in the future. Even then, they are on the bottom of the list. Still though, its not a bad thing. Your guys can build the program with some winning seasons in either the Mountain West or whatever conference between the Big12/BigEast that still exists then perhaps they will be more lucrative to the B1G when they look to finish up expansion in the future.

I agree. Louisville is pretty "meh", but they are probably the best of the bunch available if the ACC teams are off-limits. I've also heard TCU mentioned, but I doubt that happens.

I do wonder if the SEC might just stop at 14 teams, though, which has me a bit worried as it sounds like it is between Missouri and West Virginia for that 14th spot.

I would place my bet that the SEC stops at 14. For all the negatives of West Virginia the positive of West Virginia is Auburn stays in the West Division. If they take Missouri and Texas A&M then it would seem Auburn would have to move to the East division since it is the easternmost team in the West division.

If the B1G drags its feet waiting, then we might see the SEC try to grab Missouri somewhat soon after the expansion to 14 which then would lead to a team like Louisville being a front runner for that 16th position in the East division if an ACC team cannot be poached away.

[ActLikeYouCrow]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

the pod system does work perfectly from the schedule based on the format kodiak listed because youre cycling through the whole conference every 4 years with home and homes for everyone. i guess i just have wrap my head around there being 4 divisions because you can look at it in the same sense as the tiebreakers that can potentially exist even in a two division format. in the pod format you'd almost have to go with record vs common opponents then bcs rankings

donkey did say its not for every conference. personally in the sec i'd rather go with two divisions and scrap the idea of continuity between the divisions. or using a 9 game schedule cycling through the other division without home and homes so that you play each team once every four years. 1 home and 1 away every year, but you'd get the return date 4 years later.

if missouri is the 14th team in the sec i wouldnt be against just putting them in the east geographical sense aside and saving the dumb division names for the big ten.

[lonewolf371]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

Overall this is pretty exciting, but at the same time it kind of sucks. Seems to me that six 12-team conferences would be perfect. Oklahoma, UT in the Pac? Syracuse, Pitt in the ACC? Rutgers, Kansas possibly joining the Big Ten? Doesn't feel right to me.

It's certainly interesting though.

[nortobc]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

SEC- Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, S. Carolina, Georgia, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Auburn, Miss St, Ole Miss, Arkansas, LSU, Southern Miss, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor

LOL...not a chance. Why would the best conference in football take Baylor, Texas Tech and Southern Miss?

[nortobc]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

True about K-State. But if they want Kansas, they may have to take them anyway.

The way the Pac-16 will be comprised will be 4 groups of 4 teams. Texas/Texas Tech/Oklahoma/Ok St. would be one. I imagine the NW schools (UW, WSU, Oregon, OSU) would be another group, and the four California schools the third group, leaving Arizona, ASU, Utah, and Colorado as the 4th.

That actually makes a ton of sense to me. I'd imagine their scheduling would be much like the NFL's. You play everyone in your division every year. You play one of the other three divisions on a rotating basis (for instance, the "Southeast" division would play the "California" division on year, "Mountain" division another, and "Cascade" division the year after that). That's 7 games so far. Then, they'd play one team from the other 2 divisions. I'd say do it just like the NFL and have it be the team with the corresponding standing in the division. So if Ok. St. finished third in their division, the next year, they'd play, say all 4 California schools, and the 3rd place team from the NW and the 3rd place team from the Mountains. I don't know how you do the conference title games at that point (I don't think they'd do a conference playoff). Maybe the top two teams overall meet. Overall, I think it's a good way to do it. It wouldn't necessarily work for the other conferences, but with the Pac 12 (16)'s rivalries being the way they are, this actually maintains all the significant rivalries. And it means every team will play a team from California every year, and a team from Texas/Oklahoma every year, much like how the funky scheduling the conference has now is set up to ensure everybody gets to play a California team cross-division every year.

I would schedule it this way.

Play every team in your "pod" once = 3 games
Have 1 permanent opponent in each other pod. Play 2 opponents from each other pod = 6 games
total conference games = 9
3 OOC games
total regular season games = 12
winner of each pod goes to semi-final of conference championships
if you play in conf championship game = 14 games
winner of 4 super conferences play a national semi-finals
if you play in national finals = 16 total games

[Cardot]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

I find it ironic that the NCAA is merging into superconferences, and then immediately splitting up into divisions and pods.

[TripleCrown9]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

LOL...not a chance. Why would the best conference in football take Baylor, Texas Tech and Southern Miss?

Because Texas Tech has made a bowl game every year for the past decade*, and that will probably continue with Tuberville. Although I see them going to the PAC, Tech is no slouch team that everyone makes them out to be. So if you're going to shoot down a school, put some research into it.

*As a comparison:
Mississippi State- 3 bowls in the last decade
Vanderbilt- 1 bowl
Kentucky- 5 bowls
Ole Miss- 5 bowls

[ZB9]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

UT and Tech fit better in the Pac and Aggy fits better in the SEC...Austin and Lubbock are culturally more "western" than "southern"

Im looking forward to watching this new Pac 16 conference. It will be fun. Rotating the championship games from LA to Dallas and also possibly to Las Vegas sounds awesome.