nzmorange
Heisman
Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
|
RE: Divisionless Football Conferences?
(08-18-2017 05:14 PM)4x4hokies Wrote: (08-18-2017 04:46 PM)nzmorange Wrote: (08-18-2017 09:38 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote: While I'm not really a fan of abandoning divisions, doing so would allow for a schedule in which even a school in a conference of 14 could play all the other schools in the conference within two years (and with only an 8-game conference schedule). I was inspired by this article. Basically, for a 14-team conference, each team gets three protected annual matchups and alternates between half of the other ten opponents each year. The author proposes a different scheme for the ACC, adding ND as a full member and having four protected matchups. Here I'm working with the ACC as is and giving them three protected matchups like the Big Ten and SEC. I also changed some of the matchups around in each conference.
ACC
Boston College: Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
Clemson: Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami-FL
Duke: NC State, North Carolina, Wake Forest
Florida State: Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami-FL
Georgia Tech: Clemson, Florida State, Miami-FL
Louisville: Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Miami-FL: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech
NC State: Duke, North Carolina, Wake Forest
North Carolina: Duke, NC State, Virginia
Pittsburgh: Boston College, Louisville, Syracuse
Syracuse: Boston College, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest
Virginia: Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia Tech
Virginia Tech: Boston College, Louisville, Virginia
Wake Forest: Duke, NC State, Syracuse
Big Ten
Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue
Indiana: Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue
Iowa: Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Maryland: Michigan, Penn State, Rutgers
Michigan: Maryland, Michigan State, Ohio State
Michigan State: Indiana, Michigan, Rutgers
Minnesota: Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Nebraska: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Northwestern: Illinois, Indiana, Purdue
Ohio State: Illinois, Michigan, Penn State
Penn State: Maryland, Ohio State, Rutgers
Purdue: Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern
Rutgers: Maryland, Michigan State, Penn State
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska
SEC
Alabama: Auburn, LSU, Tennessee
Arkansas: Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M
Auburn: Alabama, Florida, Georgia
Florida: Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina
Georgia: Auburn, Florida, South Carolina
Kentucky: South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
LSU: Alabama, Ole Miss, Texas A&M
Mississippi State: Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss
Missouri: Arkansas, Mississippi State, Texas A&M
Ole Miss: LSU, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
South Carolina: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky
Tennessee: Alabama, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Texas A&M: Arkansas, LSU, Missouri
Vanderbilt: Kentucky, Ole Miss, Tennessee
I also have one for the Pac-12. The protected matchups were obvious. I suppose they could go with an 8-game schedule, but that means each year a team would play its three rivals and five out of the other eight teams. If they stick with nine games, that works better from a scheduling perspective.
Pac-12
Arizona: Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
Arizona State: Arizona, Colorado, Utah
California: Stanford, UCLA, USC
Colorado: Arizona, Arizona State, Utah
Oregon: Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Oregon State: Oregon, Washington, Washington State
Stanford: California, UCLA, USC
UCLA: California, Stanford, USC
USC: California, Stanford, UCLA
Utah: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado
Washington: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington State
Washington State: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington
What do you think of the whole scheme? Any matchups I should change?
SU vs VT makes more sense than BC vs VT. I know BC-VT is a "rivalry game," but it's only a rivalry in name. SU-VT has more meaning for a number of reasons.
Syracuse/VT actually makes less sense than BC. I can't imagine what the number of reasons are. VT and Miami would rank in each other's top 3 for sure. Louisville should play Syracuse. Neither VA team would choose them.
What sense does BC make?
VT took SU's ACC spot. SU knocked off VT w/ no time in '98 to win the BIG EAST. VT sniped Vick and killed SU in '01 (?) to win the BE.
VT couldn't win @SU and SU couldn't win @VT, so the all time series is roughly even (w/ SU having a slight edge) w/ both sides missing out on key opportunities.
SU is historically better than BC (and has a winning ACC record vs BC).
SU also has more alumni in the DMV than BC for a variety of reasons.
That beats "we joined at roughly the same time" in my mind at least. I have a hard time seeing VT picking BC over SU, and I have no idea why you think UL and VT are a good fit.
(This post was last modified: 08-18-2017 06:43 PM by nzmorange.)
|
|