Divisionless Conferences?

[BGRed]

Heard an XM radio college host throwing out thoughts about auto-bids for conference champs. He suggested that this idea would only seem aligned with four "best" teams if there were some changes to how conferences structured their schedules.

Most interesting idea was doing away with divisions and having the top two teams match up in a championship game (like the B12 already does).

His suggestion was that all conferences (other than B12) go with 10 conference games on a predetermined SoS matchup from year to year. So #1 team in conference from prior year would play teams #2-11, the #2 team would play #2-12 (except for team #11). There would be predetermined Home and Away matchups so that you get a balanced home/away schedule. This is still open to two non-conference games, host suggested no FCS teams allowed

I'm curious what huskers fans would think of this. I took some time to put together what this current grid could look like for us...i used final massey composite rankings of 84 rankings systems to put B1G teams into the grid.

Husker schedule - . Since we are coming off a bad year and rated #12 out of the 14 teams, we'd get easier teams on the schedule, then presumably have a better record and have a tougher schedule the following year.

Hosting:
#2 Michigan
#7 Mich St
#9 Purdue
#11 Indiana
#13 Illinois

Road games:
#5 Northwestern
#6 Wisconsin
#8 Minnesota
#10 Maryland
#14 Rutgers

Ohio State as #1 would get the following:
at #2 Michigan
host #3 Penn State
at #4 Iowa
host #5 NW
at #6 Wisconsin
host #7 Mich St
at #8 Minnesota
host #9 Purdue
at #10 Maryland
host #11 Indiana

Would be fairly easy to tweak H/A breakdowns. Obviously talent levels change quickly in college, so hard to say that next year's team strength will mirror how they finished.

You could probably easily have the dates & locations of matchups predetermined so that the schedule comes out the week after the title game and stadium schedules are known.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

I never was a fan of the divisions.
I understand it makes scheduling easier, but I'd prefer a divisionless conference

 

[Bleed Red]

Similar to NFL scheduling....tough teams get tougher schedules, although those may change quickly in both college and NFL.

Now, if the 2 OOC games were against teams ranked equal in other conferences....say OSU has to play Clemson and Bama, well....that would be interesting.

 

[Red October]

What a crackpot idea of doing away with divisions. The big 12 did not do it except they hardly had a conference left after all the defections. If it was such a good idea, the NFL , NBA, and NHL would be doing it today. NUTS!

 

[Crusty]

I’m not old but I’m a bit old school. Restructure all conferences, might have to make a few new ones, have all of them no bigger than 10. All conference teams play eachother, top 2 play eachother for the number 1 spot. That allows up to 3 non conference games. Then you can matchup the best teams I the best bowls then select the best 4 out of those who win. Easy.

 

[Hville]

I have been preaching this for a long time. The only way conferences can get automatic by's into a championship game is if they re-configure the conferences and schedules to create some type of equity. There is a huge difference within the power 5 conferences in how they schedule and how they are set up for equity between the divisions. We haven't even begun to discuss the G5 conferences and how they are so far behind the P5 conferences and yet slated for the same playoff system. Doing automatic bids without first addressing the conferences will create a chit show that makes our present system look like a cake walk.

 

[huskrthill]

Let's do everything we can to make college football more like the NFL.

This isn't a good idea.

If you're going to shake up the conferences and scheduling to this extent, then REALLY shake it up.

Drop some teams from FBS so that we bring the number back down to 110 teams. Have 10 conferences comprised of 11 teams. Play all 10 conference opponents. Allow for 2 non-conference games, but only from other FBS conferences. Take the 10 conference champions (using a standard set of tiebreaker rules). Seed them. 1 and 2 get a bye.

 

[WestTexasHusker]

I would much rather see conference-less divisions.

 

[BigRedAvenger]

It works for the Big12 because they have a small enough conference for everyone to play each other. It wouldn’t work in a conference like the SEC or Big Ten. It would come down to a popularity vote most years.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

I would much rather see conference-less divisions.

 

[BGRed]

It works for the Big12 because they have a small enough conference for everyone to play each other. It wouldn’t work in a conference like the SEC or Big Ten. It would come down to a popularity vote most years.

How so? At the end of the conference season, the top two teams record-wise play for the conference championship.

 

[Beareye]

If you don't have divisions, you really need to have a true round robin like the Big 12. Otherwise, you have inherently unbalanced schedules. The full round robin, of course, would not work in a 14-team conference like the Big 10.

 

[BGRed]

If you don't have divisions, you really need to have a true round robin like the Big 12. Otherwise, you have inherently unbalanced schedules. The full round robin, of course, would not work in a 14-team conference like the Big 10.

The mostly full round robin would be no less unbalanced than today's divisions with arbitrary cross-overs. With 10 games and 14 teams, you play everyone but 3 teams. The radio hosts theory is that if you have all top teams in a conference play each other, that is enough data to pick the top 4 out of 5 conference champions.

 

[Hville]

The mostly full round robin would be no less unbalanced than today's divisions with arbitrary cross-overs. With 10 games and 14 teams, you play everyone but 3 teams. The radio hosts theory is that if you have all top teams in a conference play each other, that is enough data to pick the top 4 out of 5 conference champions.

Here is the problem with this. Who decides who all the top teams will be and where they play? What happens when one of the weaker teams ……..who hardly played anyone of importance suddenly has a decent year and gets in because of their schedule? We are then re-creating this scenario all for the purpose of trying to get rid of it. While so many people hate it......our present system recognizes those outliers and keeps them out.

 

[BGRed]

Here is the problem with this. Who decides who all the top teams will be and where they play? What happens when one of the weaker teams ……..who hardly played anyone of importance suddenly has a decent year and gets in because of their schedule? We are then re-creating this scenario all for the purpose of trying to get rid of it. While so many people hate it......our present system recognizes those outliers and keeps them out.

Fair point on the roster turnover. However, no worse than today's preseason ranking of teams 'perceived' to be good, which gives them an advantage all season long.

I used a composite of 80+ ranking systems, mostly computer formulas, to slot the teams into my example. The when and where can all be predetermined based on the slots. For example, maybe #1 always plays at #2 the 1st weekend of November. The schools would find out when they host games immediately after the final source ranking comes out the week of the prior season's championship game.

how does the present system keep those out? Why is it fair that Nebraska always gets tough cross-over matchups, while Iowa's and Minnesota's seem to be easier? I know it is because of eyeballs and 'big games'; but, is it fair?