If you give each team 2-3 protected rivalries (the same amount for each team) and then rotate the rest of the teams, you have a more flexible and varied schedule than pods, and you still can see every team in the same amount of time as pods.
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
Something like this that I found on reddit. Each team gets 3 protected rivals, and you rotate through the rest of the teams. It's much more flexible than pods, and allows for the same rotation time as 4 team pods.
Maybe if Iowa only picked 1 or 2 protected like everyone else, maybe they could have a more even distribution of teams they play. Since Iowa picked 3 protected, they can point to themselves for part of the problem.
One issue I see is,
If every school gets 3 protected rivalries, and they can all be different.
You can get a large number of games that are guaranteed every year, It is very easy to see where a team could have its own 3 protected games every year, and then be on the list of several other teams "say 3 teams" Meaning they are guaranteed to play 6 games every year. When that happens you only have 3 other games to rotate, the remaining 10+ teams, some will have more, some could have less.
What if a team is picked by 4 or 5 others as their rival? I am sure they would have to limit it. But being everyone has different rivals, then you will have many teams that have more than 3 required games, every year.
I think the protected rivalries have to be mutual. So a protected rivalry game utilizes 1 of the protected rivals for both teams participating.
I've always liked this idea because it allows for greater protection of existing/natural rivalries for every individual school.
ASU and Arizona will always play
Utah and BYU will always play
KSU and KU will always play
The rest should be as flexible as possible. No pods, no divisions no protected rivals…blank canvas each preseason to max out matchups and interest.
Take West Virginia for example, are UCF and Iowa state rivals/natural rivals of West Virginia?
That's problem #1
Problem #2, is it fair for OSU to have to play TCU, Baylor, and Tech every single year while KSU gets Colorado, Kansas, and ISU?
It doesn't work like that. The rivalries are mutual. It will only be 3.
It's always going to be unequal. This is better than pods though, because the rivalries are more flexible.
WVU's AD has been very vocal about wanting pods or divisions to minimize travel.
I think most AD's will be on board with this. I doubt Utah or arz state want to travel to morgantown more than once in a blue moon.
Yormark will make sure the TV games are still there, but it makes no sense for WVU and cinn to not play each year even though they are not rivals.
teams in close proximity need to play each year. that's especially true with teams on the western edge and the eastern teams.
When the acc collapses, the Big 12 will have a true eastern wing, and divisions will be a thing then, if not sooner.
I think most AD's will be on board with this. I doubt Utah or arz state want to travel to morgantown more than once in a blue moon.
Yormark will make sure the TV games are still there, but it makes no sense for WVU and cinn to not play each year even though they are not rivals.
teams in close proximity need to play each year. that's especially true with teams on the western edge and the eastern teams.
When the acc collapses, the Big 12 will have a true eastern wing, and divisions will be a thing then, if not sooner.
I feel like the odds of ISU being stuck in an Eastern pod are WAY too high. BUT, if OSU is hellbent on being in the Lone Star pod, then it could look like this:
UCF
UH
WVU
Cincy
OSU
TT
TCU
Baylor
KU
KSU
Colorado
ISU
BYU
Utah
UA
ASU
And I'd definitely sign up for this.
Right, but what is the point in forcing teams to have protected "rivals" that aren't actually rivals? Wouldn't you have more flexibility both in terms of schedule strength for each team and allowing teams to play each other more often if you allowed teams to just protect their actual rivalry games?
MC has strong ties to Ohio--he may want ISU in the eastern pod.
Is it though. Everyones will always be unequal, and rivalries are usually traditional, unless you are Iowa and want to make up one with Nebby.
So ISU KSU KU OSU and maybe CU or WVU are always going to be traditional rivalries. Also for the most part regional, for a pod.
For the most part Those first 4 being in a pod, is just the same as them having each other as rivals, being old Big 8 teams they would be eaches most likely rivals.
Sure protected rivalries are more flexible, but for what? No one is putting ASU and AU with ISU, etc. The 4 mountain teams will have each other as rivals, just like they would if they were in a pod. The only question is what would they do with the 5th. The old Big 8 schools will have each other as a rival in most cases, so what would be different than if they put them in a pod? The eastern schools want travel partners, so what would be different between rivals and pods.
Really the only difference is in pods you have 4 protected teams, instead of 3. Flexibility really is not that big of a deal when you realize those pods would be very very similar to what everyones protected rivals are.
Right. The protected rivalries model is better for that very reason. The rivalries can be unique, allowing for less unhappy teams
ISU KU and KSU will always be in a pod or rivalry, The question would be if OSU or CU will be with them in a pod. WVU would fit too, but they are not pulling them out of the East pod.
Most likely Houston will go east with WVU, Cincy, UCF, if they did pods.
CU will probably be with ISU, KU, KSU
And OSU will be with Baylor, TT, TCU.
The ASU, UA, BYU and UU would be the last one.
The benefit is that ISU can have KU, KSU, WVU for example. But WVU doesn't have to play KU or KSU annually, like they would if it was a pod. Instead they can have ISU, UCF, Cincy. It's way better in that respect. It doesn't lock teams in.
But there is part of the problem. Why is WVU our rival? It is as made up as Nebby is Iowa's.
At that point you are just making up rivals, that would be outside a pod, for the sake of having rivals outside what a pod would be.
That is like saying OSU could play Utah every year, and Utah could play ASU and UA. Making up rivals outside what the regional pod would be is just that, creating fake rivals that are not traditional and regional, for the sake of saying its better than pods.
I agree. Your example is the ideal, but I have a feeling they’d throw ISU in an Eastern pod if they go pods.
WVU, Cincy, and UCF are all going to be in the same pod. ISU is the next closest team to Cincy and WVU in the conference I believe (even closer than Orlando). The only other option is Houston but WVU and Cincy are 200 and 400 miles closer, respectively, to Ames versus Houston.
I used to want pods, but the protected rivalries graphic above would be better for ISU than an Eastern pod imo.
