Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked 14 teams, 9 games, no divisions! More original work on scheduling, please look...

[Hustlin' Husker]

http://forum.huskermax.com/vbbs/showthread.php?41208-Which-do-you-prefer-a-14-or-16-team-league

So folks after I drew up a simple "pod" system, for 16 team scheduling (link above), I figured that I would attack the 14 team/9 game format to see if I could make it not suck. I believe I have come up with my best Super Confererence scheduling system yet. I also think that there could be potential for this with a 16 concept with a 16 team league, but some trade offs or changes would have to be made.

I think this is really good stuff, so if you have a substantive critique, please let me know about it. Also, if you think it's a good idea too, please forward it to your friends. BUT, if you forward it please include my user name and a link because this is original work on my part.


This system is based off of the old Big Ten system of rotating opponents, along with each team having some set opponents. I see many obvious advantages to this sort of scheduling scheme. It is based off of a 9 game conference schedule. First, it does away with some of the divisional strength complaints because there are no, traditional divisions. The idea is that the championship will be between the two teams with the best record, on paper no game is more valuable than any other (obviously not entirely true). Also, it allows for 8 opponents to be played 50 percent of the time, and 5 opponents to be played 100 percent of the time. I don't know of any divisional format which would allow for this much flexibility, while ensuring that teams play their core opponents annually, and ensuring that they see every other member of the conference no less than half of the time.This increases conference unity and recognizes rivalry. Also, I think it gives the best team in the league the best shot at advancing to the new college football playoff, due to strong scheduling and by biasing the tiebreakers against destructive rematches.

Each team plays 5 "set" games, these are games played every year. Each team plays 4 rotated games each year, are alternated after a single home and home cycle. I've drawn up an example below. Though it is just a hypothetical, I tried to make the match-ups realistic and compelling. You'll notice below each listed team there are three rows, the first row of 5 represents the teams which will be played annually. The second row is the first rotation, and the third row is the second rotation. So, lets say that 14 team league play starts in 2014. So in 2014 and 2015, each team would play the teams listed in the first and second rows, meaning in 2016 and 2017, each team plays the teams listed on the first and third rows. Then it rotates back, simple right? So what about the championship? How is it determined?

Simple, best two records go.Now, there will probably have to be tie-breakers nearly every season. But, we will structure them to the advantage of the team with the best shot of bringing home more hardware.

Two way tie for first: both first place teams play.

Three way tie for first: First, determine the first place team. If it is a three way tie where say, Nebraska beats Ohio State, Ohio State beats Michigan, and Michigan beats Nebraska, then the tie is broken for first by the BCS standings. There will then be a tie for second, except in this circumstance, the tie for second goes to the team that the first place team lost to. The rationale here is that the the team that beat the first place team had their shot, and the top team in the BCS has a better chance of entering the playoffs, and bringing home more hardware for the conference. So as an example, lets say that Nebraska is number 4 in the country, Michigan is Number 8, and Ohio State 5. Nebraska would be number 1 in the conference tie-breaker, and Michigan would be number two because they "earned" another shot at number 1, and Nebraska earned another shot at Michigan. Granted, it seems a little unfair to Ohio State but the idea is to increase the likelihood of getting B1G teams into the playoff. If Michigan wins again, Ohio State might still have a shot to enter the playoff, if Nebraska wins they do enter the playoff.

Finally, if none of the three teams played, it's all BCS rankings. (I'm unsure this is possible, it's certainly unlikely)

Two way tie for second. Head to head is the first tie-breaker, the second breaker should there be no head to head, is a team which either did not play the number 1 team or a team that beat the number 1 team. If both teams lost to the number 1 team, then the tie-breaker goes to top BCS ranking.

Three way tie for second. Essentially the same as a two way tie for second, tie breaker first, team that beat, number 1 or did not play number 1, followed by BCS ranking.

It's worth noting that, that while I haven't drawn it out, I'm pretty sure this would work for a 16 team league as well, as long as there were 10 league games. The problem with it would be either getting the NCAA to allow 2 more regular season games, and allowing for extra roster positions to deal with the wear and tear, or with having a very closed and uninteresting, 2 game non-conference schedule.


Nebraska:
Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Penn State, Northwestern
Ohio State, Minnesota, Maryland, Michigan State
Rutgers, Purdue, Illinois, Indiana

Iowa:
Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Maryland
Rutgers, Northwestern, Michigan State, Michigan
Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Indiana

Wisconsin:
Nebraska, Iowa, Northwestern, Minnesota, Michigan State
Purdue, Penn State, Ohio State, Maryland
Michigan, Rutgers, Illinois, Indiana

Minnesota:
Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Rutgers, Northwestern
Nebraska, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana
Ohio State, Maryland, Penn State, Michigan State

Illinois:
Northwestern, Iowa, Ohio State, Indiana, Michigan State.
Minnesota, Penn State, Michigan, Rutgers
Nebraska, Wisconsin, Maryland, Purdue

Northwestern:
Nebraska, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan State
Iowa, Ohio State, Maryland , Indiana
Michigan, Penn State, Rutgers, Purdue

Indiana:
Purdue, Maryland, Illinois, Ohio State, Rutgers
Minnesota, Northwestern, Michigan, Penn State
Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan State

Purdue:
Indiana, Rutgers, Michigan, Ohio State, Maryland
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Penn State, Michigan State
Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern

Michigan:
Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota, Purdue, Nebraska
Iowa, Illinois, Rutgers, Indiana
Wisconsin, Northwestern, Maryland, Penn State

Michigan State:
Michigan, Penn State, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Illinois
Iowa, Purdue, Rutgers, Nebraska
Minnesota, , Ohio State, Maryland, Indiana

Ohio State:
Michigan, Penn State, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue
Nebraska, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Maryland
Iowa, Minnesota, Rutgers, Michigan State

Penn State:
Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers, Michigan State, Ohio State
Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue, A
Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Michigan

Maryland:
Penn State, Iowa, Rutgers, Indiana, Purdue
Wisconsin, Northwestern, Ohio State, Nebraska
Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State

Rutgers:
Penn State, Minnesota, Maryland, Purdue, Indiana
Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State
Wisconsin, Ohio State, Northwestern, Nebraska

 

[statman29]

I don't think the Big 10 is done yet on adding teams, I think they will go at least to 16... But who knows it may hit 20.

If it goes 16, I hope they have four divisions of four teams.

You play everyone in your division each year.

You play 2 teams in a home and home from each division then alternate the next two years.

Total of 9 conference games.

Do that format for each conference I'm guessing if every conference goes to 16 that the remaining teams from Big East and ACC will have to merge to make five super conferences.

Four team playoff for each conference seeded by best record to worst.

Playoff system of 5 teams seed 4 and 5 play each other in opening round.

No BCS/BS! If you don't win your division, you don't win your conference you don't make the final 5 team playoff.

 

[CombatTargeteer]

16 teams; no interdivision play. draw straws the first year to see who plays who in the other division; one game out of the division each year. From the second year on the last place team in the legends plays the first place team in the leaders and so on.

 

[Hustlin' Husker]

I don't think the Big 10 is done yet on adding teams, I think they will go at least to 16... But who knows it may hit 20.

If it goes 16, I hope they have four divisions of four teams.

You play everyone in your division each year.

You play 2 teams in a home and home from each division then alternate the next two years.

Total of 9 conference games.

Do that format for each conference I'm guessing if every conference goes to 16 that the remaining teams from Big East and ACC will have to merge to make five super conferences.

Four team playoff for each conference seeded by best record to worst.

Playoff system of 5 teams seed 4 and 5 play each other in opening round.

No BCS/BS! If you don't win your division, you don't win your conference you don't make the final 5 team playoff.

Well for the purposes of discussion, I was assuming things will stay at 14 for a while, which as it happens I actually think it will. So assuming the league does stay at 14, would you agree that a divisionless system is superior to a 7 team division arrangement?

As for your proposal for a 16 team schedule. I kind of like it, except I think it would be better if were a 10 game schedule and a rotation of 5 teams. Also, I'm really digging the idea of a divisionless schedule, especially when we start getting into talking about a 4 team league tournament. You could end up with teams with some pretty crappy records in the tournament. Also, I'm not sure what the rules are on league tournaments, so that would have to be brokered with the NCAA.

 

[Hustlin' Husker]

16 teams; no interdivision play. draw straws the first year to see who plays who in the other division; one game out of the division each year. From the second year on the last place team in the legends plays the first place team in the leaders and so on.

This is neither practical, nor would it benefit the conference financially. How would you divide the teams? Also, with your system of seeding the next years game, how would you set up home-away schedules? 7 home games are critical to the budgets of most athletic departments. You need to know years in advance how many home games from the conference schedule you can count on so that you can schedule appropriately. Also, by getting rid of interdivisional play all together, you're losing match-ups like Nebraska v. Ohio State, or Nebraska v. Michigan, since almost all conceivable divisional arrangements, based at all competitive balance, tradition or geography would have the Huskers separated from those two teams.

 

[Red_MN_Golfer]

Yes but who your games every year will impact how well you do. Looking at it now there are 4 programs that are elite (and look to stay that way - WI, MI, OSU and NU). I think you would need to get groups of 4-5 and make sure the games you play each year are even between teams. If NW plays IN, IA, MN, MD, and IL each year they could have a distinct advantage of getting to the title game based on schedule.

 

[Hustlin' Husker]

Yes but who your games every year will impact how well you do. Looking at it now there are 4 programs that are elite (and look to stay that way - WI, MI, OSU and NU). I think you would need to get groups of 4-5 and make sure the games you play each year are even between teams. If NW plays IN, IA, MN, MD, and IL each year they could have a distinct advantage of getting to the title game based on schedule.

I listed an example, in this case you're asking about the purple NU, they will play Nebraska, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota and Michigan State annually.

Also in any given year, they will have to either play Ohio State, or Penn State and Michigan.

You'll notice that every team in the conference has to play at least 2 power schools every year, and nobody ever has to play all 4 in a single year. I tried to create my sample schedule to show how it could be pretty well balanced. Obviously, the schedule itself can and would be adjusted, but I think that the overall concept is incredibly sound.

 

[The Big Red Lebowski]

I listed an example, in this case you're asking about the purple NU, they will play Nebraska, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota and Michigan State annually.

Also in any given year, they will have to either play Ohio State, or Penn State and Michigan.

You'll notice that every team in the conference has to play at least 2 power schools every year, and nobody ever has to play all 4 in a single year. I tried to create my sample schedule to show how it could be pretty well balanced. Obviously, the schedule itself can and would be adjusted, but I think that the overall concept is incredibly sound.

I know I'm in the minority, but I would prefer it if NU played the "power teams" every year. IMO, next year's schedule without Wiscy and tOSU is boring.

 

[Hustlin' Husker]

I know I'm in the minority, but I would prefer it if NU played the "power teams" every year. IMO, next year's schedule without Wiscy and tOSU is boring.

I agree, but it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for Nebraska to play Penn State, Wisconsin, tOSU and Michigan every year, but playing 3 out of the 4 every year sounds good to me.

 

[PaperIsDead]

I like it. The trick is balancing out the 5-team schedules, and then adding in the 4-team schedules, and making it balance out somewhat competetively, while preserving the ability of as many teams as possible to make bowl games.

For example with NU's schedule there, NU has the toughest 5-game schedule on the board. While I like playing the good teams, a conference has to be balanced so that everyone has the same shot at a conference title. But look at who NU has. Other than Iowa, who will likely rise again soon, our 5-team pod is the top 5 teams in the conference minus OSU.

 

[CombatTargeteer]

This is neither practical, nor would it benefit the conference financially. How would you divide the teams? Also, with your system of seeding the next years game, how would you set up home-away schedules? 7 home games are critical to the budgets of most athletic departments. You need to know years in advance how many home games from the conference schedule you can count on so that you can schedule appropriately. Also, by getting rid of interdivisional play all together, you're losing match-ups like Nebraska v. Ohio State, or Nebraska v. Michigan, since almost all conceivable divisional arrangements, based at all competitive balance, tradition or geography would have the Huskers separated from those two teams.

If I have seven conference games; four home and three away and then three home and four away, I've got five more games to get the seven home games I need. Don't see any problem with that. Who cares about losing matchups, if they are any good we will play them in the CCG for even bigger ratings. If OSU or Michigan can't make it to the championship game maybe they aren't worth playing.

 

[Hustlin' Husker]

If I have seven conference games; four home and three away and then three home and four away, I've got five more games to get the seven home games I need. Don't see any problem with that. Who cares about losing matchups, if they are any good we will play them in the CCG for even bigger ratings. If OSU or Michigan can't make it to the championship game maybe they aren't worth playing.

The BTN and conference officials care about losing match-ups because it's lost revenue. Plus there is no real conference unity if you never play the other teams. Also, your original proposal did not have 7 conference games it had 8, 7 divisional plus your seeded cross-divisional game, 8. So some years you're going to have teams that will have to have all 4 of their non-con games at home, which you can ask Jeff Jamrog, but that's difficult to do and leads to crappy match-ups.

 

[Hustlin' Husker]

I like it. The trick is balancing out the 5-team schedules, and then adding in the 4-team schedules, and making it balance out somewhat competetively, while preserving the ability of as many teams as possible to make bowl games.

For example with NU's schedule there, NU has the toughest 5-game schedule on the board. While I like playing the good teams, a conference has to be balanced so that everyone has the same shot at a conference title. But look at who NU has. Other than Iowa, who will likely rise again soon, our 5-team pod is the top 5 teams in the conference minus OSU.

Fair criticism, it's just my fantasy example. I could just as easily lose Penn State or Michigan for Minnesota on the 5 game schedule, but those are some of my favorite teams in the conference to play. One of the other things to look at besides the five game schedules is how the total schedule ends up stacking up. If we call the top row (A) and the bottom row (B) and then combine the schedules and compare them, then the disparity is not as bad.

 

[CombatTargeteer]

it beats quads and zonal rotations and fifteen paragraphs of explanations and diagrams. and who said anything about not playing the other teams, we play the majority of them every year. okay so eight; that leaves four non-conference games and if 8 doesn't work than make it seven.

 

[Hustlin' Husker]

it beats quads and zonal rotations and fifteen paragraphs of explanations and diagrams. and who said anything about not playing the other teams, we play the majority of them every year. okay so eight; that leaves four non-conference games and if 8 doesn't work than make it seven.

First you said a seeded divisional crossover, next you said 7 conference games. The problem is that with seeding the single crossover is where are you going to play that game? Do the top 4 in the division always play at home? It creates problems for guys like Jamrog, who are trying to manage revenue that whole athletic departments are depending on to operate. As for 7 games, yes, that could work from a scheduling stand point but you're leaving millions in add revenue on the table, and frankly what's the point in having a conference if you don't play each other?

Also thanks, if you don't care to read my "15 paragraphs" then don't. But don't tell me that you've got a better idea when I carefully thought through mine, and you can't be bothered to read or evaluate it.