Every college football conference should scrap divisions

[Raising Heel]

SB Nation has expanded on our discussion of the 3+5 format that would eliminate divisions. Here they show the 3 permanent rivals for every Power 5 team, although they actually advocate 4 rivals for the ACC and pods for the Pac-12. You get the idea. This is totally doable.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/6/16/11935718/ncaa-conferences-divisions-scheduling

 

[WoadBlue]

It would be in place now, but the Big Ten led the fight to prevent it.

I hate the Big Ten every day of every year.

 

[WoadBlue]

The problem with what he says about the ACC begins with ND. He includes the Irish. ND is not a full member of ACC football, and so cannot be included. ND must rotate among all of us equally until such time as ND decides to go full football member.

And then the logical thing for the ACC is the 3 (annual rivals) +5+5 that most of us have agreed is best for at least a couple of years.

 

[6666Heel]

The problem with what he says about the ACC begins with ND. He includes the Irish. ND is not a full member of ACC football, and so cannot be included. ND must rotate among all of us equally until such time as ND decides to go full football member.

And then the logical thing for the ACC is the 3 (annual rivals) +5+5 that most of us have agreed is best for at least a couple of years.

Don't understand the math here - I assume we're talking 3 perm rivals + 5 other conference teams on a rotating schedule + 5 non-conference games? Are we talking about a 13 game schedule (with no conf championship game), expanding to 13 reg season + Champ game for 2 teams with best overall conf records, or what?? Can you help me out??

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Don't understand the math here - I assume we're talking 3 perm rivals + 5 other conference teams on a rotating schedule + 5 non-conference games? Are we talking about a 13 game schedule (with no conf championship game), expanding to 13 reg season + Champ game for 2 teams with best overall conf records, or what?? Can you help me out??

No, 3+5 means the following:

- 3 permanent rivals you play every season (for hypothetical, say ours are Moo, Duke, UVA)
- for your other 5 conference games (8-game conference schedule) you play 5 of the remaining 10 conference teams)
- next season, you play the same 3 permanent rivals and for the remaining 5, you play the other 5 conference teams you didn't play the year before.

All games are alternating home/away, meaning in a 4-year cycle, you play every other conference school at least two times, AND you play every single team at least once at your home stadium. Compare that to now where we only play Louisville, Clemson, FSU, Wake, BC, Syracuse once every 12 years in Kenan, once every 6 years overall.

 

[6666Heel]

No, 3+5 means the following:

- 3 permanent rivals you play every season (for hypothetical, say ours are Moo, Duke, UVA)
- for your other 5 conference games (8-game conference schedule) you play 5 of the remaining 10 conference teams)
- next season, you play the same 3 permanent rivals and for the remaining 5, you play the other 5 conference teams you didn't play the year before.

All games are alternating home/away, meaning in a 4-year cycle, you play every other conference school at least two times, AND you play every single team at least once at your home stadium. Compare that to now where we only play Louisville, Clemson, FSU, Wake, BC, Syracuse once every 12 years in Kenan, once every 6 years overall.

That makes sense - it was the second +5 of the "3+5+5" that was puzzling me - does that refer to the alternate season when the second "group of five" are on the schedule? And assuming there are no "divisions", the conf championship game then involves the 2 teams with the best conference record, or does that go away altogether?

And what is the "beef" of the numerically challenged Big Ten (plus four midgets) to the eminently logical 3+5 plan?? Seems like the theoretically optimum solution for a 14 team conference??

 

[TarHeelNation11]

That makes sense - it was the second +5 of the "3+5+5" that was puzzling me - does that refer to the alternate season when the second "group of five" are on the schedule?

Yes it does. I've never seen it referred to as "3+5+5," but yes that's what it means. "3+5" is shorter to write/type.

And assuming there are no "divisions", the conf championship game then involves the 2 teams with the best conference record, or does that go away altogether?

Yeah, the two teams with the best record will meet in the championship game. This will bring its own controversies, much like those that already exist with the "unbalanced divisions aren't fair" situation that currently exists. For one, people will always argue that School A's permanent 3 rivals are much easier than School B's. UNC would have very easy permanent rivals (assuming it's UVA, State, Duke). It's a tradeoff though. Yes we would play those three teams each season, but there would be a 50/50 chance that we would face Clemson and/or FSU and/or any other good team in any given season. Every school would face the other schools more frequently, so to me it would be much more fair than the current divisional setup.

And what is the "beef" of the numerically challenged Big Ten (plus four midgets) to the eminently logical 3+5 plan?? Seems like the theoretically optimum solution for a 14 team conference??

I cannot verify that the B1G is the reason why the NCAA said no to scrapping the divisions. All I know is that the NCAA indeed did say no. I agree that it's the perfect setup for 14-team conferences. In fact, if it was to be implemented, I think the Power 5 conferences would like it so much that talks of expanding to 16 might cease.

 

[WoadBlue]

Yes it does. I've never seen it referred to as "3+5+5," but yes that's what it means. "3+5" is shorter to write/type.


Yeah, the two teams with the best record will meet in the championship game. This will bring its own controversies, much like those that already exist with the "unbalanced divisions aren't fair" situation that currently exists. For one, people will always argue that School A's permanent 3 rivals are much easier than School B's. UNC would have very easy permanent rivals (assuming it's UVA, State, Duke). It's a tradeoff though. Yes we would play those three teams each season, but there would be a 50/50 chance that we would face Clemson and/or FSU and/or any other good team in any given season. Every school would face the other schools more frequently, so to me it would be much more fair than the current divisional setup.


I cannot verify that the B1G is the reason why the NCAA said no to scrapping the divisions. All I know is that the NCAA indeed did say no. I agree that it's the perfect setup for 14-team conferences. In fact, if it was to be implemented, I think the Power 5 conferences would like it so much that talks of expanding to 16 might cease.

It was the Big Ten that led the opposition and rallied small conferences to vote against the ACC proposal which the Big 12 co-sponsored. I think the BT did it primarily for spite: it is not ready to make that move for itself, and the ACC needs to be punished for giving ND a safe landing spot.

And, the simple fact is that if the NCAA deregulates CCGs, meaning no divisions are required, then we could add ND as a full football member without being required to add a 16th football member. And the BT does not want is to have that option, even if it will not entice ND (it won't - ND knows that we will take Navy in football as #16 to get ND, and ND would be all for that).

 

[Roady]

+1

 

[6666Heel]

Seems like if, in fact, we go to the 16 team conference, we really need to look at a "3+6" format, or a "4 pods of 4" approach, (with the team plus 3 perm rivals in the same 'pod' and an obligation to play 2 teams from each other 'pod' on a rotating basis which essentially is a 3+6 variation.

Either way, you're talking 9 conference games a yr to get a reasonable semblance of the 16 teams competing as a "conference". Wonder what that would do to non-conference game scheduling, considering that "strength of schedule" is now a consideration in both post season playoff and bowl scheduling?

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Seems like if, in fact, we go to the 16 team conference, we really need to look at a "3+6" format, or a "4 pods of 4" approach, (with the team plus 3 perm rivals in the same 'pod' and an obligation to play 2 teams from each other 'pod' on a rotating basis which essentially is a 3+6 variation.

Either way, you're talking 9 conference games a yr to get a reasonable semblance of the 16 teams competing as a "conference". Wonder what that would do to non-conference game scheduling, considering that "strength of schedule" is now a consideration in both post season playoff and bowl scheduling?

You're right, a 3+6 would be best if we went to 16, but the problem then becomes there's just too many teams and there would be the potential of like 3-5 teams all tying for the same record at the top, which would be a nightmare.

The reason the 3+5 would work so well for a 14-team conference because it would make it feel like a true conference again. Right now, these 14-team conferences essentially are two different conferences with a scheduling agreement. Hell, Syracuse and BC and FSU may as well be in a totally different conference from us because we never see them, ever. The 3+5 would unify conferences and make it more cohesive. Plus it would be fantastic for the fans and it's about damn time college football does something for the fans amidst the ridiculous price gouge of these new neutral-site games and only finding out games times 12 days in advance and crap like that.

To me, a 3+6 in a 16-team conference wouldn't feel as unified as a 3+5 in 14-team conference. If you go to 16, you'd have to almost institute a two-round ACCCG with semis and a championship game. And that just isn't feasible. Plus, the ACC needs to stick with 8 conference games, especially with ND rotating into teams' schedules periodically. A 9-game conf schedule would hamper teams' ability and willingness to schedule marquee OOC games.

 

[topdecktiger]

If you went all the way to 16, you would keep the divisions. You would just divide schools into groups of 4, and rotate those groups into different divisions every year, actually every 2 years.

The Big Ten didn't vote down the proposal because of Notre Dame. A) If Notre Dame, was actually going to join the conference, the ACC wouldn't care if a trained monkey was #16. B) Notre Dame isn't joining a conference until absolutely necessary, so there isn't any reason to make a rule to prohibit them joining. What the Big Ten is really concerned about is that a group of 8-9 schools might figure out that they can break away from these bigger conferences, hold a title game, and still make the same (or more) money, without having to support the likes of Purdue, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, etc.

The divisions aren't going away. TV likes them too much. It gives more teams a shot at the conference title, which means more games of significance for TV.

 

[accnole]

If you went all the way to 16, you would keep the divisions. You would just divide schools into groups of 4, and rotate those groups into different divisions every year, actually every 2 years.

The Big Ten didn't vote down the proposal because of Notre Dame. A) If Notre Dame, was actually going to join the conference, the ACC wouldn't care if a trained monkey was #16. B) Notre Dame isn't joining a conference until absolutely necessary, so there isn't any reason to make a rule to prohibit them joining. What the Big Ten is really concerned about is that a group of 8-9 schools might figure out that they can break away from these bigger conferences, hold a title game, and still make the same (or more) money, without having to support the likes of Purdue, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, etc.

The divisions aren't going away. TV likes them too much. It gives more teams a shot at the conference title, which means more games of significance for TV.

We have had discussions with several different similar options which I personally agree with. If that never happens what your thoughts on a north /south split like:
North
Cuse
BC
Pitt
Lou
Mia
VT
UVA
South
FSU
GT
Clem
WF
Duke
UNC
NCSU
permanent crossovers FSU-Mia, UNC-UVA. South would be stronger but SEC west and B10 east both are also and it doesn't hurt them. Would help promote better regular season games and possibly make us more attractive for TV deals. Thoughts?

 

[topdecktiger]

North/South would have been the logical split. However, it would be hard to accomplish now, because some schools are against it. For example, Virginia Tech doesn't want North/South because their travels costs are only half what they were in the Big East (which is basically what a North division would be). Plus, it would be hard to keep some rivalries intact. The easiest solution is a 9 game schedule. That would put everyone back on a 6 year rotation, like it was with 12 teams.

 

[Roady]

It makes so little sense currently....schools like FSU and Clemson, embedded in the south, playing schools in Boston and western New York.

GT coming to Tallahassee once every 12 years and vice versa.

Should be North-South....

 

[WoadBlue]

We have had discussions with several different similar options which I personally agree with. If that never happens what your thoughts on a north /south split like:
North
Cuse
BC
Pitt
Lou
Mia
VT
UVA
South
FSU
GT
Clem
WF
Duke
UNC
NCSU
permanent crossovers FSU-Mia, UNC-UVA. South would be stronger but SEC west and B10 east both are also and it doesn't hurt them. Would help promote better regular season games and possibly make us more attractive for TV deals. Thoughts?

Unless ND is a full football member, North-South ACC divisions will be as potentially destructive to the conference as the North-South Big 12 divisions were. When 1 division has the lion's share of football resources (many more recruits from its states, larger average attendance, definitely more football history), resentments will grow in each division.

 

[Begbie_Nole]

It would be in place now, but the Big Ten led the fight to prevent it.

I hate the Big Ten every day of every year.

Pissed me off they (and the SEC) voted against it. The only reason to do so was to hurt the ACC. They could keep their money train arrangements as is and just allow the ACC to get a bit more interesting... but noooo.

 

[WoadBlue]

Pissed me off they (and the SEC) voted against it. The only reason to do so was to hurt the ACC. They could keep their money train arrangements as is and just allow the ACC to get a bit more interesting... but noooo.

Slowly, everybody will come aorund. The Big Ten is terribly imbalanced in terms of national interest. The BT West is the new Big 12 North: nobody cares, even the league office.

And Les Miles will keep stirring the pot about SEC schedles. The problems he discusses are al gone if the SEC adopts 3 + 5 (5).

The Pac? Who cares? Nobody watches nationally. But its divisions have all 4 CA teams in the same division with the 2 AZ schools. CA recruiting menas if I am Utah or Coliorado or Wazzou or Oregon St, I demand to end Pac divisions.

 

[topdecktiger]

Slowly, everybody will come aorund. The Big Ten is terribly imbalanced in terms of national interest. The BT West is the new Big 12 North: nobody cares, even the league office.

And Les Miles will keep stirring the pot about SEC schedles. The problems he discusses are al gone if the SEC adopts 3 + 5 (5).

The Pac? Who cares? Nobody watches nationally. But its divisions have all 4 CA teams in the same division with the 2 AZ schools. CA recruiting menas if I am Utah or Coliorado or Wazzou or Oregon St, I demand to end Pac divisions.

It's not going to happen. Again, television likes the divisions too much. If the playoffs ever get automatic bids, you can definitely forget it.

Regarding the Pac 12, you're incorrect. All 4 California teams are not in the same division. Cal and Stanford are in the North (with Oregon, Washington, Oregon St, and Washington St). UCLA and USC are in the South (with Colorado, Utah, (the two teams you said would complain), Arizona, and Arizona St.) The schedules are set so that each team gets one California school as a crossover every year. So in other words, every school gets to play 3 California teams every year.