will Aresco tweak the conference's scheduling model? If so, how might it change?

https://theamerican.org/news/2022/11/9/a...asons.aspx

clt says yes

Considering SMUs leaving, yes.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

I hope so. I'd like us to play 5 divisional games, and three crossovers.

(09-26-2023 10:39 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I hope so. I'd like us to play 5 divisional games, and three crossovers.

We haven't had divisions for years, and won't start again now.

Divisions give too much chance of a low record division winner upsetting a higher ranked division winner and killing our chances for the NY6 or a playoff spot.

(09-26-2023 10:48 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:39 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I hope so. I'd like us to play 5 divisional games, and three crossovers.

We haven't had divisions for years, and won't start again now.

Divisions give too much chance of a low record division winner upsetting a higher ranked division winner and killing our chances for the NY6 or a playoff spot.

Top two exponentially increases the chances that whoever wins CCG will have a stronger resume.
It's also about avoiding a weak division winner giving a CFP/NY6 contender a very weak final data point for the committee. Make it impossible to move up, or even get you jumped in the rankings.
Not to mention that Ourland's math is for a twelve team conference with sux team divisions, not a fourteen team conference with seven team divisions

I'm fine with not having divisions, but would prefer to have up to 3 permanent rivals so we can have a bit more regional play than we're having this year.

(09-27-2023 08:07 AM)surrealpirate Wrote:  I'm fine with not having divisions, but would prefer to have up to 3 permanent rivals so we can have a bit more regional play than we're having this year.

This is what I'm getting at. Playing three or four permanent rivals is good for attendance and travel. Rice should be playing Tulane, UTSA, North Texas, and Tulsa every season. I don't care necessarily about going back to divisions, but the scheduling needs to be tilted slightly more in favor of regional rivalries. It's impossible to form rivalries when you don't play every season. It takes time and consistency. Playing four rivals every season isn't too much to ask. It would still give every member meaningful access to Texas and Florida.

Does the conference have a football scheduling philosophy? If we do, I haven't noticed it.

In contrast to basketball, which has a distinct philosophy of pitting the best teams H&H every year.

Id much rather have divisions

(09-27-2023 11:38 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Does the conference have a football scheduling philosophy? If we do, I haven't noticed it.

In contrast to basketball, which has a distinct philosophy of pitting the best teams H&H every year.

Last November the conference released scheduling framework for 2023-2026 seasons.

Almost every team had a single opponent all four years, and played every other team once at home and once away over those four years.
I think the philosophy starts with playing everyone as frequently as possible.

That "almost" is that two teams played each other three years but not the fourth.
I haven't done the math to figure out why that came up short.

(09-27-2023 12:00 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  Id much rather have divisions

UTSA
North Texas
Navy
Rice
Tulane
UAB
Tulsa

FAU
USF
Charlotte
ECU
Temple
Memphis
Army

We could keep divisions, while continuing to have the two top-ranked teams play one another in the championship game every season. Five divisional games and three crossovers is a realistic strategy. It would foster rivalries while also giving access to schools in the opposite division.

(09-27-2023 12:05 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 11:38 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Does the conference have a football scheduling philosophy? If we do, I haven't noticed it.

In contrast to basketball, which has a distinct philosophy of pitting the best teams H&H every year.

Last November the conference released scheduling framework for 2023-2026 seasons.

Almost every team had a single opponent all four years, and played every other team once at home and once away over those four years.
I think the philosophy starts with playing everyone as frequently as possible.

That "almost" is that two teams played each other three years but not the fourth.
I haven't done the math to figure out why that came up short.

I think it had to do with the odd number and keeping equal home games.

I would guess that whatever number we end up on it will be a 1,2,3 team rivalry set up and rotate through the rest so you play everyone home and home in a four year period.

clt asks if Army could join next season?

Can we debate how the scheduling model will be altered? I doubt the AAC will just slide Army into SMU's schedule.

(10-25-2023 09:11 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  Can we debate how the scheduling model will be altered? I doubt the AAC will just slide Army into SMU's schedule.

Why doubt?

It would work for '24 and '26. SMU was visiting Annapolis in '25 so there is one adjustment to figure out.

(10-25-2023 09:22 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 09:11 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  Can we debate how the scheduling model will be altered? I doubt the AAC will just slide Army into SMU's schedule.

Why doubt?

It would work for '24 and '26. SMU was visiting Annapolis in '25 so there is one adjustment to figure out.

That’s not a small adjustment though. unless they just have Army and Navy play 7 conference games in ‘25

(09-27-2023 12:15 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 12:00 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  Id much rather have divisions

UTSA
North Texas
Navy
Rice
Tulane
UAB
Tulsa

FAU
USF
Charlotte
ECU
Temple
Memphis
Army

We could keep divisions, while continuing to have the two top-ranked teams play one another in the championship game every season. Five divisional games and three crossovers is a realistic strategy. It would foster rivalries while also giving access to schools in the opposite division.

This is the obvious thing to do.

Aresco has indicated several times that we are not doing divisions, for the same reason everybody else is also abandoning them. Screwing up a CFP bid by having a lower rated division champ upset a higher ranked one in the CCG.

(10-25-2023 10:42 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Aresco has indicated several times that we are not doing divisions, for the same reason everybody else is also abandoning them. Screwing up a CFP bid by having a lower rated division champ upset a higher ranked one in the CCG.

You can do division style scheduling without letting it determine the CCG.