Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[werdnamanhill]

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.

You're kind of missing the point I'm trying to make. Sure I wouldn't call ISU and WVU natural rivals...but isn't this better than us being in an eastern pod? Where we don't play anyone from the big 8?

This example also works with OSU. OSU could have Tech, Colorado, KSU for example. But that leaves Tech free to have OSU, Baylor, Houston or something. If you go pods, someone is going to be put in a ****** pod with no natural rivals. This way allows for a scheduling model where you at least have some ability to get a few of your natural rivals.

 

[2speedy1]

You're kind of missing the point I'm trying to make. Sure I wouldn't call ISU and WVU natural rivals...but isn't this better than us being in an eastern pod? Where we don't play anyone from the big 8?

This example also works with OSU. OSU could have Tech, Colorado, KSU for example. But that leaves Tech free to have OSU, Baylor, Houston or something. If you go pods, someone is going to be put in a ****** pod with no natural rivals. This way allows for a scheduling model where you at least have some ability to get a few of your natural rivals.

Sure, I agree in that case it is better.

But then is it better than being in a central pod with KSU, KU, and CU?

I guess you then have to decide if we are saying what is best, or ranking what is better than the each option.

I agree that the protected rivals works in some cases, and is better than some examples. But there are cases where it just doesnt make that much sense and forces a bunch of protected rivals just for the sake of making it work.

 

[Cyclonsin]

Sure, I agree in that case it is better.

But then is it better than being in a central pod with KSU, KU, and CU?

I guess you then have to decide if we are saying what is best, or ranking what is better than the each option.

I agree that the protected rivals works in some cases, and is better than some examples. But there are cases where it just doesnt make that much sense and forces a bunch of protected rivals just for the sake of making it work.

A central pod would be ideal, and I think most of us here would agree that's the ideal future for us. But I am petrified that we end up in an Eastern pod because geographically speaking, it makes the most sense for the conference to do so.

Right now, give me the guarantee that doesn't happen. Plus I love playing our Riot Bros.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

Being stuck with pods/protected rivals means less games in Texas and Florida.

The Big Ten got it right and that's the model that the Big 12 should use.

 

[2speedy1]

Being stuck with pods/protected rivals means less games in Texas and Florida.

The Big Ten got it right and that's the model that the Big 12 should use.

so you dont like either pods or protected rivals?

Protected rivals is what Big 10 does.

 

[2speedy1]

A central pod would be ideal, and I think most of us here would agree that's the ideal future for us. But I am petrified that we end up in an Eastern pod because geographically speaking, it makes the most sense for the conference to do so.

Right now, give me the guarantee that doesn't happen. Plus I love playing our Riot Bros.

What I am worried about is they do stupid protected games like ISU vs BYU, which is what we got in BB I believe.

There are bad scenarios with everything. I mean what if they give us KSU, BYU and WVU as protected rivals? That would suck.

 

[werdnamanhill]

Sure, I agree in that case it is better.

But then is it better than being in a central pod with KSU, KU, and CU?

I guess you then have to decide if we are saying what is best, or ranking what is better than the each option.

I agree that the protected rivals works in some cases, and is better than some examples. But there are cases where it just doesnt make that much sense and forces a bunch of protected rivals just for the sake of making it work.

Sure, but is that better for CU, for example? Wouldn't they rather have some of the PAC schools annually, they've got a budding rivalry with Utah, and what about OSU?

 

[snowcraig2.0]

so you dont like either pods or protected rivals?

Protected rivals is what Big 10 does.

I think the Big 10 model is perfect. Let's the schools have a little more say in their schedule.

 

[Cyclonsin]

What I am worried about is they do stupid protected games like ISU vs BYU, which is what we got in BB I believe.

There are bad scenarios with everything. I mean what if they give us KSU, BYU and WVU as protected rivals? That would suck.

Would still be way better than being in a pod with WVU, UCF, and Cincy.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

so you dont like either pods or protected rivals?

Protected rivals is what Big 10 does.

You should protect the fewest games you possibly can. The only ones you should protect are the ones that both have history and have big TV numbers. That's why Iowa's choice to go with 3 is so dumb, it limits the number of available dates to play the big guys which leads to big TV ratings which helps recruiting and on and on.

If I'm the Big 12, I protect Arizona/Arizona State, BYU/Utah (if they want it), Kansas/K-State and, maybe TT/Baylor and that's it. I want to give as much flexibility to my TV partners as I can to get them the matchups they want in the time slots they want them.

 

[snowcraig2.0]

I think the Big 10 model is perfect. Let's the schools have a little more say in their schedule.

No one give a **** what you think.....

 

[Paz23]

Just add the Cougs and Beavers and it becomes much easier...

NW - Washington St., Oregon St., Colorado
PAROCHIAL - Baylor, BYU, TCU
SW - Arizona, Arizona St., Utah
MW - Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas St.
MID-SOUTH - Oklahoma St., Texas Tech, Houston
EAST - West Virginia, Cincinnati, UCF

Each team plays their "pod" or "group" or whatever term you want to use, each year. (2 games)
NW, PAROCHIAL and SW teams play teams from the other groups in that division every other year (3 games)
MW, MID-SOUTH and EAST teams play teams from the other groups in that division every other year (3 games)
Then the NW/PAROCHIAL/SW "division" plays 3 games against the MW/MID-SOUTH/EAST "division" on a rotating basis. Play once every 3 years and once every 6 at a given location.
8 conference games allows for 2 home and home series with other power 5 conference (one home, one away each year) and 2 home buy games. 7 home games each year.

basketball would be your group home and home, your closest "pod" home and home, and the rest once per year - 22 game schedule.
Football championship rotates between Dallas, Phoenix and Vegas
Basketball permanently in KC. Anyone that doesn't like it can F**K right off. Maybe every 5 years in Vegas. Maybe.

 

[isucy86]

That's not really true though...in pods some pods will be better than others leading to unequal schedules. And I don't see how having a protected rivals makes it any more difficult to schedule teams with regularity. It doesn't really make a difference.

But are unequal pods/divisions the end of the world?

Unequal divisions exist in most professional sports. They meet with little complaint because more than 2 teams are involved in their playoff.

What would be wrong if the Big12 had four 4 team divisions in football?

1. Have a fixed 8 game conference schedule.
2. Play the other 3 division teams & 2 teams from the other 3 divisions.
3. But flex the 9th conference game. For the 4 division champs, it's the CCG play-in game. For the other 12 teams, it's a flex game.

IMO the importance of being conference champ decreases with having a 12 team playoff.

 

[2speedy1]

Sure, but is that better for CU, for example? Wouldn't they rather have some of the PAC schools annually, they've got a budding rivalry with Utah, and what about OSU?

Well, Prime did just say he doesnt like the late night games....so maybe they would rather be with the Central teams.

But yes, I am not sure there is a perfect scenario, now that all the conferences are so huge.

 

[Clonehomer]

There will always be unequal schedules no matter what you do.

Problem is with the protected rivalries, you end up where some teams dont play the others for years especially if there is no "scheduling rules" put in place that requires certain things.

I do like protected rivalries, but I just think for certain number of teams, it works better to use pods. 16 teams it really works well, 20 it works ok, beyond those 2 not so much.

Frankly once it gets so big, it really is easier to just have 2 sub conferences that only play each other in the championship. But then all the problems of one conference being better than the other again.

Only if you insist on taking the teams with the top two records overall. With divisions, you can make equal schedules.

Football (16 teams)
Two divisions, play 7 + 2 from other division. Use the division record to determine CCG.

Basketball (16 teams)
Two divisions 14 + 8, seed tournament based on you division 1A vs 8B, 1B vs 8A, etc.

 

[isucy86]

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.

I might be in the minority, but I like a bigger group of core teams we play each year. Then have a consistent cycle where we play other conference teams.

ISU has a long history of playing CU, KSU, KU and OSU. As a fan, I rather play those teams every year. Play BYU, WVU, Baylor, etc. 1x in 3 years, would be fine with me.

 

[Nolaeer]

most sportswriters have the pods like this:
1. Colo, kstate, Kansas, Isu
2. Oklahoma State, TT, Baylor, TCU
3. Utah, BYU, Arz., Arz state
4. WVU, Cinn. Houston, UCF

 

[2speedy1]

Only if you insist on taking the teams with the top two records overall. With divisions, you can make equal schedules.

Football (16 teams)
Two divisions, play 7 + 2 from other division. Use the division record to determine CCG.

Basketball (16 teams)
Two divisions 14 + 8, seed tournament based on you division 1A vs 8B, 1B vs 8A, etc.

what I mean is someone will always have a harder schedule, than someone else.

In the B1G for instance, Mich and OSU, will always be in the same pod....or be protected rivals, So those teams will always have a heavy weighted schedule, compared to others in the B1G.

Even if you did a complete randomized schedule with nothing protected, someone will always have a tougher schedule than others. It is just the nature of not playing everyone, when conferences get above the number where everyone can play everyone.

 

[cykadelic2]

I might be in the minority, but I like a bigger group of core teams we play each year. Then have a consistent cycle where we play other conference teams.

ISU has a long history of playing CU, KSU, KU and OSU. As a fan, I rather play those teams every year. Play BYU, WVU, Baylor, etc. 1x in 3 years, would be fine with me.

Any model that doesn't facilitate at least one home and one away game with every other team in a 4 year cycle is complete BS. And it's also a no brainer and completely doable to have ISU play in AZ or UT every season and at one of the four TX schools every season.

 

[isucy86]

You should protect the fewest games you possibly can. The only ones you should protect are the ones that both have history and have big TV numbers. That's why Iowa's choice to go with 3 is so dumb, it limits the number of available dates to play the big guys which leads to big TV ratings which helps recruiting and on and on.

If I'm the Big 12, I protect Arizona/Arizona State, BYU/Utah (if they want it), Kansas/K-State and, maybe TT/Baylor and that's it. I want to give as much flexibility to my TV partners as I can to get them the matchups they want in the time slots they want them.

I don't feel that logic holds.

A central aspect of all conference schedules is to balance out SOS among all teams. No team is going to be able to load up playing "big guys". Nor would coaches want to. Iowa establishing 3 rivals was great for their fans- now the Big10 will create a schedule that levels their SOS compared to teams that might have 1 protected rival.