Yes. I'm offering that the easiest rule to enforce is always the existing one. The Big 12 is, oddly enough, not compromising the round robin rule.

twk said:

---

Not surprised. I think that the current contract will run it's course. As it gets closer to expiration, then a serious discussion can be had on going to 8. At that point, we'll have a decade of results to look at, which will make for a more informed decision.

As to the Big 10 eliminating divisions, I think that is something the SEC should consider. It hasn't been a problem the last couple of years, but, there have been years when the imbalance between the East and West resulted in a mismatch in the SEC championship. If you eliminate divisions, you can avoid this.

The scheduling solution would be to adopt something similar to our basketball scheduling model. The SEC would still play 8 conference games, but each team would play 3 other teams annually, and you would play the other 10 schools every other year (5 one year, and 5 the next), so that you play the entire league in a two year span, and you play every home and home in a 4 year span. The permanent opponents would be something like this:

Bama: Auburn, State, UT
Arkansas: Mizzou, A&M, LSU
Auburn: Bama UF, UGA
Florida: Auburn, UGA, USC
UGA: USC, UF, Auburn
Kentucky: Mizzou, UT, Vandy
LSU: A&M, Ole Miss, Arkansas
Ole Miss: State, LSU, Vandy
Miss. State: Ole Miss, Bama, USC
Missouri: Arkansas, A&M, UK
South Carolina: UGA, UF, MSU
Tenn: Vandy, UK, Bama
A&M: LSU, Arkansas, Mizzou
Vandy: UK, UT, Ole Miss

You'd have to develop tie-breakers (one of which might involve avoiding a re-match if one of the two teams tied for 2nd had played and lost to the 1 seed, and the other had not), but that's not a huge problem. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but with that type of schedule, I don't think it would be mathematically possible to have more than 2 teams go undefeated, so, at worst, you're talking about which teams, with a loss, deserve a shot at the championship game.

---

I'm pretty sure that it is possible to have 3 teams go 8-0 with this schedule.

Lets take Alabama and Georgia and assume they go 8-0, so that means that Auburn, Miss St, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Florida cannot go undefeated.

That leaves 7 teams. A&M, Ole Miss, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Vanderbilt, LSU

Since we are not talking about a divisional format where a team would automatically be paired with either Georgia or Alabama's "side", but a "random 5" type schedule, it is entirely possibly that 1 or 2 of the 7 teams listed above do not have Alabama or Georgia on their schedule and thus could go 8-0 as well.

Let's put it this way: I think that if you properly balance the schedule, it's possible to ensure that there are no more than 2 teams that go undefeated, but not just any combination will do that. I say that based on looking at the example from the SB nation article that was linked, and just looking through the matchups. I did manage to find a possibility where you could have more than one, but I think that could have been eliminated with a little bit more care in crafting the overall matrix. I could be wrong about that, but it seems to me that if Team A plays 8 teams, Team B should play the four remaining teams among its 8, allowing you to cover all the bases, such that if teams A and B go undefeated, they will inflict at least one loss on every other team in the league.

twk said:

---

Let's put it this way: I think that if you properly balance the schedule, it's possible to ensure that there are no more than 2 teams that go undefeated, but not just any combination will do that. I say that based on looking at the example from the SB nation article that was linked, and just looking through the matchups. I did manage to find a possibility where you could have more than one, but I think that could have been eliminated with a little bit more care in crafting the overall matrix. I could be wrong about that, but it seems to me that if Team A plays 8 teams, Team B should play the four remaining teams among its 8, allowing you to cover all the bases, such that if teams A and B go undefeated, they will inflict at least one loss on every other team in the league.

---

But the way you are designing the schedules plays into long term balance.

The SEC has six teams that have won a conference championship in the modern era. In your system, Auburn has to play three of those historic powers every year. Missouri, on the other end, has none of them as "permanent" rivals. Neither does LSU.

In the long run, you are almost guaranteeing that Auburn slowly erodes in comparison to the other historic powers simply by virtue of schedule. And that will slowly mess with the balance of your schedules even further.

The current SEC divisions are actually pretty good. The historic six are split evenly. I'll give you that right now the West with A&M is historically a bit deeper, but not that much. And once Bama ends its historic run (will happen) things will start to balance out. Remember-- they were not even conference champs last year.

I represent TAMU, MSU, Ole Miss, Arkansas...and yes, LSU.

"ONE DIVISION NOW. ONE TRUE WHATEVER. WE JUST WANT SEC-E MEAT MORE OFTEN. Thank you."

Six years and the East has been equivalent...never.

TheFirebird said:

---

twk said:

---

Let's put it this way: I think that if you properly balance the schedule, it's possible to ensure that there are no more than 2 teams that go undefeated, but not just any combination will do that. I say that based on looking at the example from the SB nation article that was linked, and just looking through the matchups. I did manage to find a possibility where you could have more than one, but I think that could have been eliminated with a little bit more care in crafting the overall matrix. I could be wrong about that, but it seems to me that if Team A plays 8 teams, Team B should play the four remaining teams among its 8, allowing you to cover all the bases, such that if teams A and B go undefeated, they will inflict at least one loss on every other team in the league.

---

But the way you are designing the schedules plays into long term balance.

The SEC has six teams that have won a conference championship in the modern era. In your system, Auburn has to play three of those historic powers every year. Missouri, on the other end, has none of them as "permanent" rivals. Neither does LSU.

In the long run, you are almost guaranteeing that Auburn slowly erodes in comparison to the other historic powers simply by virtue of schedule. And that will slowly mess with the balance of your schedules even further.

The current SEC divisions are actually pretty good. The historic six are split evenly. I'll give you that right now the West with A&M is historically a bit deeper, but not that much. And once Bama ends its historic run (will happen) things will start to balance out. Remember-- they were not even conference champs last year.

---

No one would force Auburn into that. But, they've been begging to be moved to the East, and thereby imbalance the divisions, for years. I'm only suggesting those 3 permanent opponents because I think that's would Auburn would request--nobody would force that on them if they didn't. From Auburn's standpoint, yes, their permanent opponents would be tougher, but, more often than not, their rotating opponents would be weaker as a result. It might not totally balance out, but I think Auburn would prefer playing 3 historic rivals every year as opposed to two (what they currently have) with some random lesser school permanently on the schedule for the sake of balance.

I wonder if presidents/ADs would be willing to accept divisionless conferences (for 12-team and bigger conferences)? I would imagine such a change would require a majority vote, and I can't imagine some of the Big Ten West schools approving it.

They could approve reshuffling the divisions again, but keep Michigan and Ohio State together for the previously mentioned problem of back to back games. The West was hurt by Nebraska turning into a mediocre program, and Wisconsin sliding back after Bielema left.

Beat the Hell said:

---

Time to do away with divisions in all college and pro conferences.

---

It's time to do away with everything!