Sounds like Wichita St to the AAC... Who gets an Invite?

[TheAsianSensation]

I know I keep saying this, but we should NOT create divisions if we go to 12 teams.

We need the top teams all playing each other twice every year. Divisions get in the way of that.

There can still be elements of geography in the schedule, we can always insure the least amount of travel for the bottom teams. But there's a reason there's only 2 conferences that currently employ divisions.

[unipanther99]

I know I keep saying this, but we should NOT create divisions if we go to 12 teams.

We need the top teams all playing each other twice every year. Divisions get in the way of that.

There can still be elements of geography in the schedule, we can always insure the least amount of travel for the bottom teams. But there's a reason there's only 2 conferences that currently employ divisions.

Yes. Absolutely. Do any conferences do divisions for basketball?

Unless you want to replace the conference tournament with a game (or maybe 3 game series) between the two division champs, it just doesn't make sense.

[BCPanther]

I know I keep saying this, but we should NOT create divisions if we go to 12 teams.

We need the top teams all playing each other twice every year. Divisions get in the way of that.

There can still be elements of geography in the schedule, we can always insure the least amount of travel for the bottom teams. But there's a reason there's only 2 conferences that currently employ divisions.

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS X1000!!

The worst thing we can do is go to a model that limits flexibility of making sure that top teams play each other twice and get stuck playing bottom teams twice. Also, cutting to 16 league games is a huge mistake. It's borderline impossible for top teams to get OOC games as it is and having to find two more would be a nightmare. Continue to play 18. With 12 teams that would mean you'd play 7 teams home and home and then play the other 4 once (2 home, 2 away). That model works!

[TheAsianSensation]

I know I keep saying this, but we should NOT create divisions if we go to 12 teams.

We need the top teams all playing each other twice every year. Divisions get in the way of that.

There can still be elements of geography in the schedule, we can always insure the least amount of travel for the bottom teams. But there's a reason there's only 2 conferences that currently employ divisions.

Yes. Absolutely. Do any conferences do divisions for basketball?

Unless you want to replace the conference tournament with a game (or maybe 3 game series) between the two division champs, it just doesn't make sense.

The MAC does it, and the OVC.

It's pretty telling with the MAC. They're the greatest underachievers in mid-major land the last decade. Although most of the power in the league is in the East currently, so it's not as bad for them.

Did you know Belmont and Murray are in different divisions in the OVC, and only played once this year? That's a travesty of the highest order.

[squirrel]

Yeah, the trickiest thing is figuring out the best approach. Random doesn't work, but strategically addressing it doesn't always work, either. But I think there can be a mixed approach.

Each school gets 2 protected rivalries which will always remain H-H. Tiers are grouped by previous year finish:


Tier 1
1st-3rd

Tier 2
4th-6th

Tier 3
7th-9th

Tier 4
10th-12th

Play everyone 1x (11 games)
Play tier peers 2x (add 2 games)
Play 2 Protected Rivalries 2x (add 2 games)
Starting with the best finisher the year before, they will get a H-H against the next best team they are not already seeing 2x (add 1 game)
Random computerized drawing determines remaining two H-H opponents (add 2 games)

Note: If rivalries overlap as peers, then the next best league finisher will replace the rival for that schedule line.

[musiccitybulldog]

I know I keep saying this, but we should NOT create divisions if we go to 12 teams.

We need the top teams all playing each other twice every year. Divisions get in the way of that.

There can still be elements of geography in the schedule, we can always insure the least amount of travel for the bottom teams. But there's a reason there's only 2 conferences that currently employ divisions.

I agree with the Sensation 1000%. Part of the reorg has to be the excitement of the new teams and seeing them play. We don't need divisions. Get the new teams in and let's go. Exciting!

[SMUfan]

Maybe part of the holdup is finding out which school could join right away.

Murray State would have to wait until 2018-2019 because they are committed to their football schedule.

MVC may be trying to find out who can join for 2017-2018. So a guess would be one school added for 2017-2018 and 2 schools for 2018-2019.

[Drakey]

Is there some reason we can't play 20 or 22 conference games?

[musiccitybulldog]

You may want to consider these two......http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/news/north-carolina-hb2-acc-championships-ncaa-boycott-unc-nc-state/rqtmr53jqdub12gtili3pwdei

[uniftw]

Maybe part of the holdup is finding out which school could join right away.

Murray State would have to wait until 2018-2019 because they are committed to their football schedule.

MVC may be trying to find out who can join for 2017-2018. So a guess would be one school added for 2017-2018 and 2 schools for 2018-2019.

Football has nothing to do with it. OVC would make them ineligible for conference title and let them play. See every fcs school that's ever gone FBS.

The issue is the one million dollar OVC buy out.

It concerns me that our best options can't afford their buy out of only a million