re: Mullen proposes 9 game SEC schedule with 4 home and away with 1 neutral site game

quote:

---

Because no divisions requires more tie-breakers to compare ALL teams against each other to see who is ranked above whom due to lack of common opponents.

---

I didn't ask "why not go division-less." I was merely making a point about how wrong it would be to have a system where the schedules of cross-divisional teams are more balanced than the schedules of divisional teams.

quote:

---

BTW, WHY does the B12 even have a champ. game when they have a full round-robin schedule each year that determines a winner.

---

$$$. And that "13th data point," or whatever they call it.

What do those chains have to do with each other?

Miss. - MSU - Ala. - Aub. - UGA - UF
&
Miss. - MSU - Ala. - Tenn. - Vandy

Alabama Auburn... Connected
Auburn Miss St... Connected ish
Georgia connected to AU and UF
Miss Miss St connected
Vandy... Really uncertain where their "tradition" regarding football opponents would be outside of UT in state and Kentucky for proximity

SOG had a thread a while back that was pretty well balanced with the 3-5 pod approach... If I can find it later will link.

quote:

---

Can you explain what this means? I'm not following.

---

Sorry for the delay. And apologies to both you and NocaHomas Teepee for being grumpy. I haven't slept in ages (don't ask) and I'm drifting now.

The scenario is a 16 team conference with 4 divisions of 4 and 9-game schedules, each team playing 3 divisional games and 6 cross-divisional games (2 from each of other 3 divisions).

In that scenario, any 2 teams from the same division would have an average of 5 common conference games (common opponents + each other). Some may have a little more, some a little less. Five is just the avg. 5 games out of 9 gets you a rounded 56%. So the schedules of two divisional teams would be, on average, 56% balanced.

Two cross-divisional teams would have an avg of 5.5 common games (common opponents + each other wherever applicable). Their schedules are 61% balanced on avg.

In a division-less 16-member conference with 9-game schedules, two teams would have an avg of 5.4 common games out of 9 for 60% balance.

With 2 divisions, permanent of impermanent, 2 divisional teams would have an avg of just under 7.3 common games out of 9 for 81%

I get it now.

However, I have a different 4x4 plan earlier in this thread where (like current divisions) 8 teams will join up & have 7 games against the others. You could also have 1 perm. rival in each pod you play yearly as Games 8 & 9. Each year you would rotate the paired pods & would face everybody in 3 years, full rotation in 6.

Anyways, like divisions, you have so many teams with almost the same opponents, determining the winner would be easier.

& both winners of the 2 groups make up the SECCG teams.


The only trouble I'm having is creating a schedule for this. Everytime you play somebody, you'ld have to rotate the H/A team the next time you meet. &, obviously, the hitch is that either you will have 2H/1A or 1H/2A against the other 3 teams in your pod.
It makes sense until you try tackling that.