Bio not provided
@AllTideUp 6 rotating pods of 3 is mathematically impossible to have each pair of pods in the same division 2/5 of the time. You'd have to have some play 1/5 and others 3/5 of the time. Of course, you could then re-jigger the rotation every 5 years to even it out.Another alternative:Pod of 6, 4 pods of 3. The pod of 6 plays other teams 1/4 of the time; the pods of 3 play each other 2/4 of the time. Alternative with rule change:If you can't stage a 2-step championship, then simply take the 2 best division winners. A Wild-Card system would be nice though.
1 year, 5 months ago on How An SEC-Big XII Scheduling Alliance Could Doom The ACC
@DaveHenson That is how I see it as well. Virginia and Georgia Tech to the Big Ten.Duke and UNC would pick Big Ten over SEC; but if the Big Ten didn't send them an invite (temporary 16-team psychological ceiling), would those two schools wait a bit longer in the ACC if the SEC asked right away?Miami and Pittsburgh would be the last two bubble teams on a 4-team Big 12 expansion. I wouldn't be surprised by either. NC State and/or Va Tech would be on their radar too if the SEC scored a coup with Duke and/or UNC and the Big 12 wanted to go to the 'full' 16.
So, with 16 teams in both the SEC and Big 12 and with a scheduling agreement between the two...
...wouldn't that equal 4 divisions of 8, with a few extra games scattered about:
Texas/Oklahoma/Texas Tech/Baylor/OK State/Kansas St/Kansas/Iowa St
Texas A&M/LSU/Alabama/Auburn/Arkansas/Missouri/Ole Miss/Miss St
Florida/Georgia/Tennessee/Vanderbilt/South Carolina/NC State/Va Tech/Kentucky
W Virginia/Louisville/Florida St/TCU/Ga Tech/Clemson/Pittsburgh/Miami
Each team gets 7 division rivals and 1 permanent cross-over rival. Perhaps 1 or 2 more games are thrown in to keep schedules competitive.
At this rate, once the Big 12 grant-of-rights concludes, I could see a full-on merger.
Arkansas-Texas Tech (most of the rest could rotate)
Auburn-Georg... oh, wait... -OK State
Iowa State-Miss St
Although the southern incest jokes may fly, a Bama-Florida Sugar Bowl is conceivable. But I do think a 1-loss Clemson has the edge there. Also, the Gators are 1 loss by ND/UO/KSU away from reaching a guaranteed BCS bowl (Top 4 finish), so the Sugar Bowl may be in such a quandary. Especially if Georgia is the SEC Champ, you might see some horse-trading where the Sugar Bowl gets the Fiesta to take the Gators in exchange for "future considerations" (next year the Sugar Bowl picks before the Fiesta).I did see that La Tech is only 4 ranks away from the minimum BCS Buster rank. If they win out and the Big East champ has a 2nd loss, it could be the Tech Bulldogs playing in the Sugar Bowl. What a way for the WAC to go out.
1 year, 8 months ago on SEC Still Has Slim Title Hopes After Short BCS Drop For Bama
You know... Florida is sitting at #6 in the BCS.
If all the above happens to let a 1-loss SEC champ in, you can just add a 3rd loss (or a 2-loss SEC Champ) and viola the Gators are in the title game.Well, it may not be that easy. A 1-loss Oregon, KSU, or Notre Dame may be favorable to a 1-loss Florida (but the computers look favorably on the Gators). So, we better throw in a rockin' landslide over Florida State to sway the human voters as well as the computers.
I am not sure math is being used here.
Georgia and Tennessee have a combined chance of going 120%??? Ha
1 year, 10 months ago on The SEC’s Best Bets For Undefeated Septembers
@John at MrSEC I like the draft idea very much!
1 year, 11 months ago on Forget Selection Committees And Conference Tie-Ins, It’s Time For A Bowl Draft
@GrayGrantham That money is not going to just disappear. The SEC and Big 12 will still get their money even if the Champions Bowl is a semifinal.I will say, to the original article, wasn't the plan to have 1 of the semifinals at either the Orange/Rose/Champions on January 1st and the other at an Access Bowl on December 31st?
@BonzaiB "Another" bowl game? The Cotton is the only bowl game the SEC plays in Texas; 3 are in Florida, 2 in Tennessee. If the Champions Bowl goes to New Orleans and the Cotton becomes an "Access Bowl," then the SEC may send zero teams to the state for a bowl game.
1 year, 11 months ago on Three Texas Cities (Plus Atlanta, New Orleans) Bid For "Champions" Bowl
Think of the craziness if Houston were to get the game. Then you'd have the Fiesta, Cotton, Sugar, and Peach all competing to be one of the three "access" bowls. I still think there is room for a 7th game featuring the 13th and 14th most popular teams from across the country, even outside the semifinal rotation, for whichever of those 4 don't get in (or for the Capital One bowl, because Houston likely won't get the Champions Bowl).
Jerry has the better resources (including stadium), New Orleans has the better city. Houston would have been nice too.
I also think it'll come down to money, and more specifically what rights the Cotton/Sugar would maintain over their bowl if it were co-opted by the "Champions" Bowl.
Alternating cities would be nice, but I can't think of anything the conferences would gain from that. The Cotton and Sugar will both pick SEC (and occasional Big12) teams even if they aren't hosting the Champions Bowl. They'll pick the city that best suits their needs and that offers the most fiscal reward.
1 year, 11 months ago on Report: A 2-City Race To Host "Champions" Bowl (But Not The 2 Cities Everyone Expected)
@Clockwatcher It'll be bound by the 40-yard lines. Yes, that will be a big logo.
1 year, 11 months ago on UF Making Logo Changes To Florida Field
I think New Orleans is the best location for this game, by far.
But, Jerry Jones' pocketbook might be the deciding factor. **sigh**
2 years ago on Oh, Please Let The “Champions” Bowl Partner With The Sugar Bowl
A division-less structure could be great. And, of course, it would only be financially smart to do it if the SEC CCG could be kept. It would also pipe down those inane calls for further expansion, as if 16 were a magical number. Perhaps 3 permanent rivals and then play 5 of the other 10 on a two-year on / two-year off basis (a meshed rotation, of course, so that you don't change all 5 non-permanent rivals on the same year).
Of course you CAN do this within the current division restraints... if you are okay with teams sharing permanent rivals.
**Central Quad** (room for 1 permanent East-Central rivalry for each team; not mandatory)
^USC/Vandy/Auburn could be rotated to preserve Vandy-Tennessee as a permanent rivalry. But this makes more geographical sense.
Pair a 4-team quad with a 3-team quad and switch every two years. Ta da! For the first two years the divisions could look identical to now except for switching Arkansas to the East (North-East) and Tennessee to the West (South-Central).
2 years ago on Saban Wants Scheduling To Be Less “Divisional” Oriented
@jmindel I was going to respond with this too. You (MrSec) could just mention that the California schools continue to play each other every year without typing out the exact frequency of other non-divisional matchups (4/8 for California schools and 6/8 for non-California schools)
2 years, 1 month ago on How The Five Major Conferences Handle Football Scheduling
@MJW With those rules you could also replace 2004 #5 California with #6 Utah if you wanted to reward Conference Champions while still restricting the "semifinals" to 3 (or the occasional 4) bowls.
2 years, 2 months ago on Did The SEC-Big 12 Bowl Announcement Backfire?
@MJW I went through all the years but added a discrete method to determine the championship participants rather than relying on polls and further subjectiveness.
1. The two bowl winners with the highest pre-bowl ranks go to the National Championship
2. Two teams of neighboring rank are considered tied and the one defeating the higher ranked team in their bowl will advance. (If #4 beats #1 and #3 beats #10 then #4 advances to the National Championship)
3. If Rule 2 dolly-chains (#3 beats #4, #2 beats #5, #1 beats #10) then revert back to rewarding the highest ranked bowl winner.
Interestingly, in 2000 and 2001 we'd probably need 4 games because you are not guaranteed 2 Top 6 bowl winners from the three "semifinals."
S: 1 Oklahoma vs. 7 Florida (UF needs UM and UW upsets)
O: 2 Florida St vs. 5 Va Tech (VT needs UM or OU upset)
*F: 3 Miami vs. 6 Oregon State (UM needs OU or FSU upset)
R: 4 Washington vs. 17 Purdue (UW needs OU and UM upsets)
*Oregon State or any team ranked 6-16 will play in this game
*O: 1 Miami vs. 6 Tennessee (UT needs 2 of UC, OU, NU upsets)
*F: 2 Nebraska vs. 5 Florida (UF needs a UC upsets but not a UM upset unless OU is also upset)
S: 3 Colorado vs. 13 LSU (UC needs a NU upset or both OU and UM upsets)
R: 4 Oregon vs. 8 Illinois (OU needs a UM upset)
*Tennessee beat Florida in season finale, gets easier chances at National Championship Game
This does "seem" to open the door for a true plus-one or a triple semifinal scenario.
BUT, that is not what Slive wants, is it? This is a power play. If the BCS does not form the final four in the SEC's image, then the playoff will be off and the SEC will still be left standing with a vault full of money from this Bowl Game.
Delaney and Scott don't really have another move. Hostile takeover of the Big 12, Longhorn network and all? Too late for that. They already laid their cards on the table: the Rose Bowl is priority numero uno.
Just like in '97, the Rose/B1G/P12 will have to go with the flow. They couldn't compete with the Alliance championship game and they probably can't compete with the Big 12 vs. SEC bowl game. I would, though, like for them to get some compromise against a strict Top 4 should the SEC get its way.
Then again, I wouldn't mind too much if the BCS was dropped and the Rose vs. Alliance picked back up.
Not sure what you are getting at. I was writing about a wild-card game, not human polling. Human polling, like any polling, will not please everyone simultaneously. A Wild-Card Game will broker an excellent compromise between those pushing for "Champions Only" and "Top Four" playoff proposals. It will add gravel and tree limbs to the "slippery slope" by practically ensuring that the Top 6 teams that don't make the playoff don't because they lost their CCG or the WCG.
2 years, 2 months ago on Commissioners Concerned With Self-Interests, Not Best Interests Of College Football With New Playoff Proposal
"Champions Only" has its merits... if only there weren't non-champions regularly appearing in the Top 3. Am I right?
My favorite solution is to schedule a nation-wide CCG for two top teams that aren't already playing in one. Last year, Alabama and Stanford would play against each other at the beginning of December with the winner being crowned a "champion" and having a shot at making the playoffs.
This would throw a bone to the SEC by giving all of the Top 5 teams (pre-CCGs) a direct line to the National Championship, but it would also continue to put an emphasis on winning your conference and adding an extra hurdle for the SEC (or any other conference) to put 2 teams into the playoff.
A quick look back: (with projected final BCS standings BEFORE any CCGs are played)
[other playoff teams with projected post-CCG rankings]
2011: #2 Alabama vs. #4 Stanford [#1 LSU, #3 OK State, #4 Oregon]
2010: #4 Stanford vs. #5 Wisconsin [#1 Auburn, #2 Oregon, #3 TCU]
2009: #5 TCU vs. #6 Boise State [#1 Alabama, #2 Texas, #3 Cincy]
2008: #3 Texas vs. #6 Utah [#1 Oklahoma, #2 Florida, #5 USC]
2007: #4 Georgia vs. #5 USC [ #1 Ohio State, #3 LSU, #4 Va Tech]
2006: #2 Michigan vs. #4 LSU [#1 Ohio State, #2 Florida, #4 USC]
Oops. Saw MrSec was ahead of the game.
2 years, 4 months ago on Bama's Saban (No Surprise) Is Against A League Champs Only Playoff; We Think A Compromise Is Coming
Compromise? 3 Champs, not 4, and the next best 2 teams vie for the 4th spot on Championship Saturday.Alabama vs. Stanford for spot #4 that first weekend of December.
Yeah the Big 12 blew it big time. At the very least they should have given Nebraska-Oklahoma a protected rivalry. Last year I tried to go back over the situation and pick out a "better" method. It was simply to rotate Big Eight rivalry pairs through the Big 12 South every year. OU-OSU, Neb-Col, ISU-KSU, Mizz-Kan. Teams could max out on 1 SW-BE permanent rivalry and 4 Big Eight permanent rivalries to keep playing everyone at least twice every 4 years.
Whichever rotation method they go with, H-B-A-B or H-A-B-B, the important once ever four year visit will be there. I'll leave it up to the money-makers to determine which is best.
2 years, 5 months ago on A Divisionless Set-Up Would Help The SEC In Football
@SEC Ag That was my thinking too.
I like the idea of staggering as well (if I understand your meaning). Rather than switching all 5 of your rotating rivals every other year, you switch 3 one year, 2 the next, and then switch those same 3 again on the 3rd year.
If you are saying we accelerate that so that you play your non-permanent rivals on a HOME-BYE-AWAY-BYE rotation, then that is of course an option; but, I think most leagues prefer having the home-away games sidled back to back.
@SEC Ag Yeah, it'd be great to get them in the same pod. My rational for pod making was that the dolly chain of Flo-Geo-Aub-Ala-Ten-Vandy rivalries requires those teams to be in the smaller quads in some configuration, or else you'd have to cancel one of those rivalries. I considered putting South Carolina in there in place of Vanderbilt, but because Vandy-Tennessee is an in-state rivalry I considered it unbreakable.
From there keeping LSU with the Mississippi teams was priority and everyone else kinda fell into place. I suppose you could put A&M with Ark, Mizz, and Kentucky, while South Carolina goes with LSU and the Mississippi teams. It kinda messes with geography, but it could be done.
People keep pushing for 16 teams because they think scheduling will get easier. But it won't; not unless you are going to Quads. And you can go to Quads now without the rigamarole of adding 2 teams. Here is a simple alignment that keeps all of the permanent rivalries that have existed post WWII.
SOUTH: LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St, Texas A&M
NORTH: South Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas
CENTRAL: Tennessee, Alabama, Vanderbilt
EAST: Auburn, Georgia, Florida
Every team has 3 permanent rivals, the 3 in their quad. The smaller quads (EAST and CENTRAL) also may have 1 permanent rivalry from each other (like the Iron Bowl).
Quads are paired two years at a time, 1 larger (SOUTH and NORTH) with 1 smaller (EAST and CENTRAL). These pairings create divisions where teams will play a full round-robin schedule. The winner of each division will then proceed to the SEC Championship.
Beyond these 6 division games, the two larger divisions will play 2 games against each other and the two smaller divisions will play 2 games against each other (although 1 of these may be a permanent rivalry, like the Iron Bowl).
This leads to an 8-game schedule every year, 3 permanent rivals, and 5 rotating rivals against the remaining 10 teams (play twice every 4 years).
Sure, 9 games would make things easier, but the SEC will be the last to move to that many games. Also, if they keep stagnant divisions and 1 cross-division rivalry, some teams will play twice only every 12 years (yikes!!!). Tweaks can certainly be made to the above alignment, especially with the smaller divisions because of the flexibility with the cross-quad rivalry. South Carolina has an especially onerous schedule with far-away permanent rivals. Playing every team more often than currently, though, will help equalize travel for this far-spread league.
2 years, 6 months ago on A Divisionless Set-Up Would Help The SEC In Football
@John at MrSEC Actually it is really easy to do 10 rotating rivals that play every 5 years.Florida, for example, could have OM two years (once home, once away) and then MSU two years (once home, once away). Every school would divide their non-permanent rivalries into 5 pairs. I've also done it with slightly staggered rotations, where you don't necessarily switch every even year ('14, '16), but rather for some "pairs" you can even switch on every odd year ('15, '17); this allows for a more gradual rotation than switching 5 schools after each two year rotation.The "tricky" part would be starting off 7 schools with 2 permanent and 2 rotating rival home games and 7 schools with 1 permanent and 3 rotating rival home games. But once you've identified those schools you can then draw up schedules, rivalry pairs, and then advance some pairs a year to allow for the gradually changing rotation. I'll place a simple example in another post here.