header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: P5 Alignment - post NCAA Membership

 (Read 28630 times)

medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8906
  • Liked:
Re: P5 Alignment - post NCAA Membership
« Reply #126 on: March 16, 2018, 11:24:46 AM »
Well, no a pod is different than a division.  Pods move around to create the divisions.
Exactly, the two terms are NOT interchangeable.  The describe different conceptual entities. Divisions are semi-permanent.  Pods are combined temporarily to create divisions.  

medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8906
  • Liked:
Re: P5 Alignment - post NCAA Membership
« Reply #127 on: March 16, 2018, 11:32:42 AM »
Ouch. I can't think of a conference having a worse post than the Pac this year. There is too much money out there for them to stay at the bottom for long.
Exactly!  ELA has pointed it out here and elsewhere and he is right, the PAC's athletics this academic year (at least in the revenue sports) have been an unmitigated disaster:
  • They missed the CFP
  • Missing the CFP should have given them easier bowl match-ups and led to a solid bowl record like it did for the B1G but instead they tanked in their bowls (1-8)
  • They only got three NCAA Tournament invites (even worse than the B1G's four).  Worse, their three invitees were a four seed and two "last four in" 11-seeds.  Worse than that, all three lose their first NCAA game.  

That is REALLY bad for a P5 conference.  Still, your statement that they are still far closer to the next worst P5 league than they are to the best G5 league is spot on.  In the long-run they are clearly among the "haves" and not the "have nots".  They'll be back.  

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20343
  • Liked:
Re: P5 Alignment - post NCAA Membership
« Reply #128 on: March 16, 2018, 11:37:22 AM »
Exactly!  ELA has pointed it out here and elsewhere and he is right, the PAC's athletics this academic year (at least in the revenue sports) have been an unmitigated disaster:
  • They missed the CFP
  • Missing the CFP should have given them easier bowl match-ups and led to a solid bowl record like it did for the B1G but instead they tanked in their bowls (1-8)
  • They only got three NCAA Tournament invites (even worse than the B1G's four).  Worse, their three invitees were a four seed and two "last four in" 11-seeds.  Worse than that, all three lose their first NCAA game.  

That is REALLY bad for a P5 conference.  Still, your statement that they are still far closer to the next worst P5 league than they are to the best G5 league is spot on.  In the long-run they are clearly among the "haves" and not the "have nots".  They'll be back.  
Their network is an absolute disaster, and their tv deals, with like 4 games on every Saturday at 11 PM ET are terrible.  I agree I'd rather be them than the American, but I don't think the gap between #4 and #5 is going to do anything but grow.
The only thing that can help them would be a move from 5 to 4 power conferences, and given geography I feel like they almost have to be one of the survivors.  I'd be curious about some kind of aggressive move by the Big XII though to go after the Arizona and California schools though to go from 10 to 16 and ensure their own survival.  Granted a conference stretching from Morgantown to LA seems untenable too.

rolltidefan

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2219
  • Liked:
Re: P5 Alignment - post NCAA Membership
« Reply #129 on: March 16, 2018, 11:42:03 AM »
Exactly, the two terms are NOT interchangeable.  The describe different conceptual entities. Divisions are semi-permanent.  Pods are combined temporarily to create divisions.  
are you suggesting the 'pods' won't be permanent? teams will move in/out regularly? not even in a lala land fantasy will cfb go to that kind of system.
division simply means it is divided into subsections. it can be 2, 4, 12, 99, whatever. pods are moving containers or plant seeds or something. makes no sense other than some arbitrary word chosen by some idiot (not anyone here, though for the life of me i can't figure out why some here have run with it).
you have conferences, which are divided into more manageable subsections. divisions. this isn't difficult.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2018, 11:43:39 AM by rolltidefan »

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25268
  • Liked:
Re: P5 Alignment - post NCAA Membership
« Reply #130 on: March 16, 2018, 11:59:55 AM »
If this was only about money, redundant schools like MSU, Purdue and NU would not be in the conference anymore.  :sign0135:

And if you're gonna sell your soul and invite UNC to the party, you may as well invite Baylor and Louisville too.

I'll find something else to pass the time, I guess.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20343
  • Liked:
Re: P5 Alignment - post NCAA Membership
« Reply #131 on: March 16, 2018, 12:17:32 PM »
are you suggesting the 'pods' won't be permanent? teams will move in/out regularly? not even in a lala land fantasy will cfb go to that kind of system.
division simply means it is divided into subsections. it can be 2, 4, 12, 99, whatever. pods are moving containers or plant seeds or something. makes no sense other than some arbitrary word chosen by some idiot (not anyone here, though for the life of me i can't figure out why some here have run with it).
you have conferences, which are divided into more manageable subsections. divisions. this isn't difficult.
No, the problem being that if you take a 16 team conference and divide it into 2 divisions of 8, you immediately have 7 games locked in every year.  If you only play 8 conference games, you'd play a home and home with each school in the opposite division every 16 years.  So what's the point of even having the two divisions be a conference.
So instead of 2 divisions of 8, you have 4 pods of 4, then the pods are split 2 and 2 to make divisions.  That way you play all 7 teams in your division, but you are only locked into the 3 teams in your pod, with the other 4 division games rotating.
It's a way to make a 16 team conference work, and still see the other schools more than twice every 16 years.

rolltidefan

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2219
  • Liked:
Re: P5 Alignment - post NCAA Membership
« Reply #132 on: March 16, 2018, 12:30:32 PM »
No, the problem being that if you take a 16 team conference and divide it into 2 divisions of 8, you immediately have 7 games locked in every year.  If you only play 8 conference games, you'd play a home and home with each school in the opposite division every 16 years.  So what's the point of even having the two divisions be a conference.
So instead of 2 divisions of 8, you have 4 pods of 4, then the pods are split 2 and 2 to make divisions.  That way you play all 7 teams in your division, but you are only locked into the 3 teams in your pod, with the other 4 division games rotating.
It's a way to make a 16 team conference work, and still see the other schools more than twice every 16 years.
but you're still locking in all 8 teams in divisions to 7 games. no different than now.
i say don't lock together any of the 4 division. you don't need to.
4 conferences 16 team conf.
4 div of 4 teams each.
9 conf games. 3 ooc games.
play every team in conf at least 1 every 4 years.
3 games - play all 3 teams in your division.
3 games - have 1 lock game from each other div (preserves split rivals if need, can scrap if not needed)
3 games - rotate other 3 teams from each other div annually.
(can drop the locked cross-div games and do 6 div crossover games, 2 from each div, and play everyone in conf every other year.)
3 games - play 1 team from each of the 3 other conferences.
add 1 game to schedule, conf tourney rd 1. rotate the div vs each other (div a vs b, c vs d year 1, a vs c, b vs d year 2, etc.)
then conf title game.
then each conf champ goes to rd 1 of cfb playoff.

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37567
  • Liked:
Re: P5 Alignment - post NCAA Membership
« Reply #133 on: March 16, 2018, 12:36:34 PM »
No, the problem being that if you take a 16 team conference and divide it into 2 divisions of 8, you immediately have 7 games locked in every year.  If you only play 8 conference games, you'd play a home and home with each school in the opposite division every 16 years.  So what's the point of even having the two divisions be a conference.
ding ding ding
16 teams is too many for a conference
the ONLY reason to have 16 teams bundled into a conference is for ease of negotiation for TV network content contracts
pods accomplish two things:  they make it possible for two teams in a 16 team conference play regularly more often than 16 years (good)  they also make it impossible for more than 4 teams to play every year (bad)
I'd much rather have 2 divisions of 8, play the 7 teams every stinking season to promote rivalries.  If you want to play a team in the other division fine, either every year or every 16 years.  If a team from the west doesn't want to play a team from the east, that's fine for me.
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20343
  • Liked:
Re: P5 Alignment - post NCAA Membership
« Reply #134 on: March 16, 2018, 12:38:21 PM »
but you're still locking in all 8 teams in divisions to 7 games. no different than now.
i say don't lock together any of the 4 division. you don't need to.
4 conferences 16 team conf.
4 div of 4 teams each.
9 conf games. 3 ooc games.
play every team in conf at least 1 every 4 years.
3 games - play all 3 teams in your division.
3 games - have 1 lock game from each other div (preserves split rivals if need, can scrap if not needed)
3 games - rotate other 3 teams from each other div annually.
(can drop the locked cross-div games and do 6 div crossover games, 2 from each div, and play everyone in conf every other year.)
3 games - play 1 team from each of the 3 other conferences.
add 1 game to schedule, conf tourney rd 1. rotate the div vs each other (div a vs b, c vs d year 1, a vs c, b vs d year 2, etc.)
then conf title game.
then each conf champ goes to rd 1 of cfb playoff.
No, it's not the same thing.  You aren't locking in 7 games.  You are locking in 3.  You are just ensuring that the 8 teams in the same division play 7 common opponents in a year.  In yours the schedules between teams are too variant for a good comparison.
With pods you ensure that a given division is playing 7/8 a common schedule, but that you get to see every team in the conference more often.  Assuming the pods rotate in 2 year increments to allow for home and homes, you are seeing each team home and home every 6 years if they aren't in your pod, as opposed to every 16 years.

rolltidefan

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2219
  • Liked:
Re: P5 Alignment - post NCAA Membership
« Reply #135 on: March 16, 2018, 02:15:01 PM »
No, it's not the same thing.  You aren't locking in 7 games.  You are locking in 3.  You are just ensuring that the 8 teams in the same division play 7 common opponents in a year.  In yours the schedules between teams are too variant for a good comparison.
With pods you ensure that a given division is playing 7/8 a common schedule, but that you get to see every team in the conference more often.  Assuming the pods rotate in 2 year increments to allow for home and homes, you are seeing each team home and home every 6 years if they aren't in your pod, as opposed to every 16 years.
2 things:
1 - in my scenario each team in each div would play a comparable schedule. i've set up this for the sec before and it works much better for comparable schedules than the current setup.
and every team in the conference would play everyone else in conference at least every other year if you rotate correctly (disregarding h/a), and home/away every 3 years (4 if you do not use the cross div lock), and at worst play each team every 5 year, and home/away at worst 6 years (if using the lock and use the worst possible way to schedule).
2 - in your scenario, just call them divisions, cause that's still what they are. if you want to rotate full div crossovers, fine. but no reason to call them pods. it's still just a 4 div system, with div a playing all of div b, and div c and d likewise. rotate for year 3 a/c, b/d, etc. still just divisions.
scenarios aside, it's more about terminology. neither of these are breaking down a conf more than once. not in any practical sense.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2018, 02:18:48 PM by rolltidefan »

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18874
  • Liked:
Re: P5 Alignment - post NCAA Membership
« Reply #136 on: March 16, 2018, 10:09:54 PM »
Badge, this isn't a difficult riddle to figure out, it was money.  It is always money.  
I seriously questioned Nebraska over Mizzou because I thought the money would be better with Mizzou but I now think I was wrong.  Nebraska is a true Helmet in football with an enormous regional and a decent national following.  Mizzou simply couldn't match that.  
Missouri is a much more populous state than Nebraska (~6.1M vs ~1.9M) but my guess is that Missouri has extremely few out-of-state fans.  Nebraska, on the other hand, has tons of out-of-state fans such as @FearlessF .  Even in my little town in Ohio I've seen at least two houses flying Cornhusker flags on gamedays.  
Nebraska is a special case because, as a Helmet, they have a loyal following much larger than simply population demographics would suggest.  Outside of cases like that, conference expansion/realignment is mostly based on population.  
  • Missouri is at 6.1M and growing anemically.  
  • Maryland is at 6M and growing faster than Missouri.  
  • New Jersey is at 9M and growing faster than Missouri.  
  • Virginia is at 8.5M and growing rapidly.  
  • North Carolina is at 10.3M (just passed Michigan) and growing rapidly.  
I believe, based on this, that the B1G's next targets (and there will be next targets) will be in VA and NC.  My best guess remains UVA and UNC.  

Bottom line:  Missouri makes sense but UVA and UNC make dollars, millions and billions of dollars.  
Hence the realism of my 4x4 pods scenario....

tOSU isn't lumped in with the newbies, UNC + UVA give the 2 B10 newbies 2 friends and there's a pod.  Or division.  Or section.  Or quartet.

Getting hung up on the nomenclature just slows the conversation, guys....
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18874
  • Liked:
Re: P5 Alignment - post NCAA Membership
« Reply #137 on: March 16, 2018, 10:19:12 PM »
So you B10ers, say these are you 16 schools.  Due to politics and what-not, how would you quarterize them?

Iowa, UNL, Minn, Wisc, NW, ILL, IU, PU, M, MSU, tOSU, PSU, Rut, Md, UVA, UNC

Would tOSU and Michigan get priority seating?  I really think the eastern 4 are a no-brainer, but you may be left with a super-pod of M-OSU-MSU-PSU.  Would that be a bad thing?  The western 4 are easy, too.  

My guess was western 4, eastern 4, then mix-match the power-pod up with the IL/IN pairs.  But that's just my ignorant guesswork.
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37567
  • Liked:
Re: P5 Alignment - post NCAA Membership
« Reply #138 on: March 17, 2018, 12:07:04 AM »

Would tOSU and Michigan get priority seating?  
duh
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

TyphonInc

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1931
  • Easily Amused
  • Liked:
Re: P5 Alignment - post NCAA Membership
« Reply #139 on: March 17, 2018, 12:21:01 PM »
Outside of cases like that, conference expansion/realignment is mostly based on population.  
  • Missouri is at 6.1M and growing anemically.  
  • Maryland is at 6M and growing faster than Missouri.  
  • New Jersey is at 9M and growing faster than Missouri.  
  • Virginia is at 8.5M and growing rapidly.  
  • North Carolina is at 10.3M (just passed Michigan) and growing rapidly.  
I believe, based on this, that the B1G's next targets (and there will be next targets) will be in VA and NC.  My best guess remains UVA and UNC.  

Bottom line:  Missouri makes sense but UVA and UNC make dollars, millions and billions of dollars.  
Just a small caveat to the population assumption. It based off media markets (which usually lines of with states, but not always.)
When the BTN was first released PSU claimed most of Pennsylvania, but was not awarded the Philadelphia Media Market. When Rutgers and Maryland was added the cable company then also included Philly.
Rutgers was a priority get not because of the 9 Million in Jersey, but the 19 million in the NYC Media Market.
Missouri would bring in all the smaller markets in the state (6 million) but also both Kansas City (33rd, 900k) and St. Louis (21, 1.2 milion) Media Markets, half of such population resides in a different state. St. Loius is part of the anemic growth of Missouri, but Kansas City is one of the fastest growing markets.
I also counter that Virginia and North Carolina would not bring the entire state under their media market banner. In fact I would argue in NC, we would almost end up with the Longhorn Network type deal that the majority of the state would revoke the BTN on the premises that they would rather see the other 3 schools over UNC.

Duke has more football fans than UNC
In fact looking at the map UNC is non-existent as a majority across the state.

Just random musings of a know nothing football fanatic.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2018, 12:45:20 PM by TyphonInc »

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.