Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Conference expansion.

Collapse

Support The Site!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Four teams to a pod (3 games)
    2 non conference games
    6 Rotating MIAA opponents

    Pod 1- NWMSU, UCM, LU, MW
    Pod 2- UCO, NSU, Pitt, MSSU
    Pod 3- FHSU, UNK, ESU, WU

    MSSU mock schedule 2021/2022- Pod format (Pitt, NSU, UCO)

    1- non-con @ Lindenwood
    2- non-con vs. Ashland
    3- @UCM
    4- Lincoln
    5-@UCO
    6- UNK
    7-@FHSU
    8-NSU
    9-@MW
    10-ESU
    11-@Pitt

    Don't play NW and WU (guaranteed to play them in 2023/2024)



    Pitt Mock Schedule 2021/2022-
    1-non-con vs. Midwestern State
    2-non-con @ Missouri S&T
    3-MW
    4-@NW
    5-NSU
    6-@FHSU
    7-WU
    8-@UCO
    9-UCM
    10-@UNK
    11-MSSU

    Don't play ESU/Lincoln (guaranteed to play them 2023/2024)

    Comment


    • #47
      Brandon Is this similar to the pod system you sent to the MIAA?

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by MIAAWeekly View Post
        Four teams to a pod (3 games)
        2 non conference games
        6 Rotating MIAA opponents

        Pod 1- NWMSU, UCM, LU, MW
        Pod 2- UCO, NSU, Pitt, MSSU
        Pod 3- FHSU, UNK, ESU, WU

        MSSU mock schedule 2021/2022- Pod format (Pitt, NSU, UCO)

        1- non-con @ Lindenwood
        2-@UCO
        3- @UCM
        4- Lincoln
        5- non-con vs. Ashland
        6- UNK
        7-@FHSU
        8-NSU
        9-@MW
        10-ESU
        11-@Pitt

        Don't play NW and WU (guaranteed to play them in 2023/2024)



        Pitt Mock Schedule 2021/2022-
        1-non-con vs. Midwestern State
        2-NSU
        3-MW
        4-@NW
        5-non-con @ Missouri S&T
        6-@FHSU
        7-WU
        8-@UCO
        9-UCM
        10-@UNK
        11-MSSU

        Don't play ESU/Lincoln (guaranteed to play them 2023/2024)
        I think I like mix up of the non- conference games through out the season.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by GorillaTeacher View Post

          I think I like mix up of the non- conference games through out the season.
          The easiest time to schedule non-cons is early in the season. Many conferences play only conference games later in the season. When Omaha dropped football and a year later when Truman left, this created open dates for whoever had them scheduled since the MIAA does 2-year scheduling. The teams with an open date later in the season were often not able to fill that date.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by MIAAWeekly View Post
            Four teams to a pod (3 games)
            2 non conference games
            6 Rotating MIAA opponents

            Pod 1- NWMSU, UCM, LU, MW
            Pod 2- UCO, NSU, Pitt, MSSU
            Pod 3- FHSU, UNK, ESU, WU
            While the pods make sense geographically, that's a very weak Pod 2 compared to the others. 1 strong program- Pitt, 1 middle of the road- UCO, 2 weak- NSU, MSSU. Compare that to the other pods: Pod1 has 2 strong programs- NW and UCM, 1 middle of the road- MW, and 1 weak- LU. Pod 2 has 1 strong program- FHSU (and maybe not even a strong program now) and 3 middle of the road- UNK, ESU, WU.

            Obviously, you can argue where each program should fall but I think it is clear there is a definite dropoff in Pod 2. Not sure how you can account for that in a pod system. That may just be a flaw that you have to live with if this type of system is used.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by NWHoops View Post

              While the pods make sense geographically, that's a very weak Pod 2 compared to the others. 1 strong program- Pitt, 1 middle of the road- UCO, 2 weak- NSU, MSSU. Compare that to the other pods: Pod1 has 2 strong programs- NW and UCM, 1 middle of the road- MW, and 1 weak- LU. Pod 2 has 1 strong program- FHSU (and maybe not even a strong program now) and 3 middle of the road- UNK, ESU, WU.

              Obviously, you can argue where each program should fall but I think it is clear there is a definite dropoff in Pod 2. Not sure how you can account for that in a pod system. That may just be a flaw that you have to live with if this type of system is used.
              If you wanted to keep the core teams that have been a part of the conference since 1991 lumped together, the easiest thing to do is throw the OK schools with UNK and FH and then put WU and ESU with Pitt State and MoSo. I don't think that really solves the competitiveness issue (having NW, MW and UCM together is going to make that hard to solve), but it does separate out the recent doormats into each of the 3 pods.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by NWHoops View Post

                While the pods make sense geographically, that's a very weak Pod 2 compared to the others. 1 strong program- Pitt, 1 middle of the road- UCO, 2 weak- NSU, MSSU. Compare that to the other pods: Pod1 has 2 strong programs- NW and UCM, 1 middle of the road- MW, and 1 weak- LU. Pod 2 has 1 strong program- FHSU (and maybe not even a strong program now) and 3 middle of the road- UNK, ESU, WU.

                Obviously, you can argue where each program should fall but I think it is clear there is a definite dropoff in Pod 2. Not sure how you can account for that in a pod system. That may just be a flaw that you have to live with if this type of system is used.
                That's a small issue to me, because honestly, there are only two teams you wont see, then you could theoretically schedule them as non con, if you chose, or just wait for the next cycle, then you get them. I think it will all come out in the wash, and goal here is also to not expect doormats to always be doormats. I think MSSU is a pretty solid example. Really, other than NW, the Last 20 years has ebbed and flowed with strong teams, and weak teams.

                Perhaps NSU can buck their recent trend. And who knows about Lincoln, I think they are solidly where they are...

                Comment


                • #53
                  The above system could allow 2 teams to share the title without playing each other. Here's a radical idea which would attempt to eliminate that possibility and still have non conference games:

                  2 divisions broken up however is decided. For this example I'll use East/West. 2 non-cons, 5 division games & 3 games against teams in the other division (in 4 years each team in one division would play each team in the other once at home and once on the road). That brings us to week 11.

                  Before the season starts declare one division the home team for week 11 and rotate the following year. That way everyone knows if they have a home game just not the opponent. Start at the top of the standings and match the top East team with the top West team that they have not already played and work down the standings matching up East vs West.

                  In some seasons this might produce a "championship game" but my guess is most seasons there will be more than 1 game that has a chance to determine who will win/share the title or the title is wrapped up for someone after week 10.

                  What this does, is attempt to guarantee a quality opponent for quality teams that are in playoff consideration. The only way a top quality team from one division doesn't play a quality team from the other in week 11 is that they have already played the quality teams.

                  My guess is they would have to put together a committee to hash out the ties but each team could know week 11's opponent no later than a few hours after week 10's games are completed.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Randy View Post
                    The above system could allow 2 teams to share the title without playing each other. Here's a radical idea which would attempt to eliminate that possibility and still have non conference games:

                    2 divisions broken up however is decided. For this example I'll use East/West. 2 non-cons, 5 division games & 3 games against teams in the other division (in 4 years each team in one division would play each team in the other once at home and once on the road). That brings us to week 11.

                    Before the season starts declare one division the home team for week 11 and rotate the following year. That way everyone knows if they have a home game just not the opponent. Start at the top of the standings and match the top East team with the top West team that they have not already played and work down the standings matching up East vs West.

                    In some seasons this might produce a "championship game" but my guess is most seasons there will be more than 1 game that has a chance to determine who will win/share the title or the title is wrapped up for someone after week 10.

                    What this does, is attempt to guarantee a quality opponent for quality teams that are in playoff consideration. The only way a top quality team from one division doesn't play a quality team from the other in week 11 is that they have already played the quality teams.

                    My guess is they would have to put together a committee to hash out the ties but each team could know week 11's opponent no later than a few hours after week 10's games are completed.
                    I love everything about this EXCEPT the idea of a committee to hash out ties. Even if it's something that eventually gets devolved to random number generation, I'd prefer a lengthy list of pre-established tiebreakers that avoids any chance of it going to a committee. Like you said, this would almost never matter, but I'd still like to see it.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by GorillaBred View Post

                      I love everything about this EXCEPT the idea of a committee to hash out ties. Even if it's something that eventually gets devolved to random number generation, I'd prefer a lengthy list of pre-established tiebreakers that avoids any chance of it going to a committee. Like you said, this would almost never matter, but I'd still like to see it.
                      Basketball has a pretty involved tie-breaker to seed the conference tournament, starting with head-to-head if it applies and ending with a coin flip if all other possibilities are exhausted.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Randy View Post
                        T
                        Before the season starts declare one division the home team for week 11 and rotate the following year. That way everyone knows if they have a home game just not the opponent. Start at the top of the standings and match the top East team with the top West team that they have not already played and work down the standings matching up East vs West.

                        In some seasons this might produce a "championship game" but my guess is most seasons there will be more than 1 game that has a chance to determine who will win/share the title or the title is wrapped up for someone after week 10.

                        What this does, is attempt to guarantee a quality opponent for quality teams that are in playoff consideration. The only way a top quality team from one division doesn't play a quality team from the other in week 11 is that they have already played the quality teams.
                        Do you think this will do more to help or hurt a potential playoff team? While someone is getting a quality win, another good team is taking a loss that will move them down for seeding purposes or potentially knock them out of the playoffs altogether. Depends of what you prefer- a true conference champ or getting MIAA teams in the playoffs to show the strength of the conference.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Predatory Primates View Post
                          Brandon Is this similar to the pod system you sent to the MIAA?
                          Very

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by NWHoops View Post
                            That may just be a flaw that you have to live with if this type of system is used.
                            Yes. There are no constants. If you were to have done this same thing in 1993, Pitt and Southern would have complained that average/poor Northwest and Western got to be in the same pod. No system will ever be perfect and satisfy everyone 100%.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Randy View Post
                              The above system could allow 2 teams to share the title without playing each other. Here's a radical idea which would attempt to eliminate that possibility and still have non conference games:

                              2 divisions broken up however is decided. For this example I'll use East/West. 2 non-cons, 5 division games & 3 games against teams in the other division (in 4 years each team in one division would play each team in the other once at home and once on the road). That brings us to week 11.

                              Before the season starts declare one division the home team for week 11 and rotate the following year. That way everyone knows if they have a home game just not the opponent. Start at the top of the standings and match the top East team with the top West team that they have not already played and work down the standings matching up East vs West.

                              In some seasons this might produce a "championship game" but my guess is most seasons there will be more than 1 game that has a chance to determine who will win/share the title or the title is wrapped up for someone after week 10.

                              What this does, is attempt to guarantee a quality opponent for quality teams that are in playoff consideration. The only way a top quality team from one division doesn't play a quality team from the other in week 11 is that they have already played the quality teams.

                              My guess is they would have to put together a committee to hash out the ties but each team could know week 11's opponent no later than a few hours after week 10's games are completed.
                              Somewhat similar to PSAC system and I *think* I included something like this in what I sent the league.

                              In the PSAC system, each year on the last week of the season, eight PSAC West teams will be scheduled at eight PSAC East teams and visa versa.

                              Let's say Edinboro is in first place in the West. Bloomsburg is in first place in the East. Edinboro is scheduled to play West Chester. Bloomsburg is scheduled to play Mercyhurst. The opponents will switch. The final week would see Edinboro at Bloomsburg for the PSAC championship and Mercyhurst would play West Chester.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by GorillaBred View Post

                                I love everything about this EXCEPT the idea of a committee to hash out ties. Even if it's something that eventually gets devolved to random number generation, I'd prefer a lengthy list of pre-established tiebreakers that avoids any chance of it going to a committee. Like you said, this would almost never matter, but I'd still like to see it.
                                My committee was to hash out the manual stuff. The top team in the east played 1 of the 2 teams tied for top in the west so they would play the other team. Human beings are going to have to sort that out.

                                Comment

                                Ad3

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X