re: north-south split

I'd like to respectfully but pretty much completely disagree with all of what you posted

Yes, home and away venues are only one aspect of scheduling but it (and the strength of your fixed opponents) is perhaps the most important aspect. It also represents a further departure from the historical type of scheduling that SEC teams faced (in years gone by LSU might only play 6 in conference games but would often play several very good out of conference opponents)

quote:

---

AL
AU
TN
Vandy

with 9 games you would play something like AL/Vandy and then TN/AU in off cycles. With 8 teams you can't always play 2 teams, so some will only play one tean in this division

---

In support of your "keep it simple" approach I would advocate a very different scheduling approach: one fixed out of division opponent and a rotation of four other out of division opponents. You absolutely positively do not have to worry about playing an even number of teams from each division because there is no real purpose in killing yourself to do this (it isn't "even" if you do anyway because the teams within each division are of variable strength)

quote:

---

2) you lose home gate revenue (half a game per year on average)... a good part of the whole expansion thing is to make more money


This is just not true in practice. The only way for it to be true is if everyone only plays OOC games at home

---

Strongly disagree with your point of view here. Athletic programs like their wine and cheese and rely upon home gates from football to bring in revenue. This often means a near requirement for a certain number of home games for many programs (yes, there are exceptions alternative venues like LSU/Oregon or Ark/A&M in Jerryworld are options for a couple teams a year)

If you increase the number of in conference games too much you will inevitably (IMO) see fewer meaningful out of conference games because the home gates are desired and there are fewer times when you get a nice return on taking the risk of playing real opponents out of conference.

quote:

---

3) if you have 8 conference games with four fixed opponents (three in division, one from another division) you still have four out of division opponents to play with per year. With 16 teams that means you still play everyone at least twice every six years (and that's about what we already see in the SEC today)


6 is too long. We are at 5 today, which should be the max as it is the normal max eligibility of a player.

---

Right now in the 12 team SEC we functionally have two rotating out of division games divided among 5 possible opponents. That means you play every rotating opponent once every 2.5 years.

If we went to a 16 team SEC with a four rotating out of division games divided among 11 possible opponents then you see virtually no difference. Because you would play every rotating opponent once every 2.75 years.

A difference of 0.25 years in rotation frequency is about as trivial as this sort of change can be IMO (no substantial change at all).

quote:

---

8 conference games would work and 9 offers no substantial advantages (but some disadvantages)


8 has big disadvantages and a minor advantage. 9 has simplicity; 9 maximizes schedule quality; 9 maximizes conference coherence; 9 facilitates quality OOC opponent scheduling.

---

categorically disagree with most of this.

1) 9 regular season conference games instead of 8 offers less flexibility for home gates and out of conference scheduling,
2) makes for more guaranteed losses for every team in the conference (a potential .5 wins/team in teh conference if you instead schedule a cupcake to get bowl eligible),
3) does not make things more fair or more simple when it makes for different numbers of home and away games from year to year and,
4) makes ooc scheduling more limited not better - because there are fewer open gates among which to schedule and less incentive to take a risk when you are already getting beaten up playing a full SEC schedule of 8-9 games plus a potential two conference playoff games.

Don't want to get in an unproductive back and forth, so I'll just expand on points that I don't think I communicated well.

quote:

---

In support of your "keep it simple" approach I would advocate a very different scheduling approach: one fixed out of division opponent and a rotation of four other out of division opponents. You absolutely positively do not have to worry about playing an even number of teams from each division because there is no real purpose in killing yourself to do this (it isn't "even" if you do anyway because the teams within each division are of variable strength)

---

Of course there are innumberable ways of sched. But my point is this. Look at GA's sched this year. They don't play either LSU or AL. With what I propose, it can be set up where everyone in the conference would have to play one or the other. Other traditional powers can be likewise split up. You just can't do that with an 8 game sched.
What do I mean by facilitating OOC games with quality opponents. Your point is that schools do not want to give up home games. Consider our sched this year, but change the neutral site Oregon game to be a home game. It breaks down as follows:

4 conf away games
4 conf home games
3 OOC home games
1 OOC away games

7 home games total

Now assume we adopted the 9 conf game format and we could have the following:

5 conf home games
4 conf away games
2 OOC home games
1 OOC away games

7 home games total.

Who has given up anything at home?

(oops wasn't finished)

Of course the next year they would give up a game, so it's only one game over two years, but you enhance the product. Coaches will bitch and moan about it just like they did when we went to an 8 game sched, but that didn't turn out bad either, even though the same arguments were made that you are making now.