Shaking up the conferences

[jozzybear]

I have been trying to find a way to really shake up the conferences. I have been doing this in a spreadsheet, haven't played with any yet.

Here is what i have tried.

10 12 team conferences all evenly distributed by their overall rating.

4 power conferences divided evenly among the top 48 teams, then the other 6 conferences divided evenly among the rest.

4 power conferences with 16 teams.

8 power conferences evenly distributed by overall.

I try my best to keep most of the rivalries together, but most of the time, it keeps the conferences mostly the same.

What do you guys think would be the best way to do this?

[tarheelguy4736]

Re: Shaking up the conferences

I have been trying to find a way to really shake up the conferences. I have been doing this in a spreadsheet, haven't played with any yet.

Here is what i have tried.

10 12 team conferences all evenly distributed by their overall rating.

4 power conferences divided evenly among the top 48 teams, then the other 6 conferences divided evenly among the rest.

4 power conferences with 16 teams.

8 power conferences evenly distributed by overall.

I try my best to keep most of the rivalries together, but most of the time, it keeps the conferences mostly the same.

What do you guys think would be the best way to do this?

I have mine set up by location/regions and gave each conference a championship game, thus determining the true winner of that conference. I also use this for playoff purposes. Below is my set up. I tried to places team geographically close in each conference or divisions. This has created a somewhat balance approach in the game for me as not one team is dominate season after season. One team rises one year and then may fall to the middle of the pack the next year. For me, this set up has created great parody. If one team gets too good, I look at re-arranging them to a higher rated conference but still within that same geographic region. This set up also keeps basically all the rivalries together, which is good.

[whughes]

Re: Shaking up the conferences

I've been using a tiered system with teams moving up or down a tier based on their final standings. I'm into year 4 and I've been enjoying it so far. It does break up rivalries however, with one team being in a higher/lower tier conference as their rival, so they don't get the rivalry games unless it's a team you're controlling and you manually schedule it

[RyanXGrindle]

Re: Shaking up the conferences

I did mine based on location, however I didn't break it up based on how good the teams were. For example the Big 12 included all of the Texas school from UT all the way to UTSA. I played as South Alabama in the SEC with the Alabama schools, the Georgia schools and the Florida schools. Needless to say it was a rough go, but I eventually built them up and got that national championship.


The one thing I hate about realignment is that you have to keep at least one team as an independent. In my experience if you leave only one team as an independent the will build themselves up quickly even if they are not very good when you start your dynasty.

[orangeafroman]

Re: Shaking up the conferences

I made 8 conferences with BCS tie-ins of 14 teams each. The rest are thrown into USA/Sun Belt/Ind as riff-raff.


8 x 14 = 112 teams with an equal shot.


The SEC and Big Ten stayed the same.
I added WKU to the MAC (14).
The ACC stayed the same.
The PAC 12 + BYU and Nevada (14)
The American + Army and ND (14)
The XII + Rice, UTSA, Texas St, and N. Texas (14)
The MWC + New Mexico St and Idaho


That leaves these 13 schools:
So. Miss, La Tech, GA State, So. Alabama, ULM, ULL, MTSU, Ark State, FIU, FAU, Old Dominion, Troy, and Marshall.


I put 4 in USA, 4 in the Sun Belt, and the rest are independents.