Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: Inter-conference Match-up Proposal

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    328
    Contribute to D2
    Rep Power
    35416

    Default Inter-conference Match-up Proposal

    I'd like to see the MIAA and GAC conferences work out a way to have teams play each other every year. Arkansas and Oklahoma are close in proximity to allow fairly easy travel for all teams and GAC puts out a fairly competitive product, certainly at the top of their conference anyway. Both have 12 teams and only play intra-conference games hampering the playoff selection committee and strength of schedule numbers. This is my proposal (and I'm basically prepared to be ridiculed).

    The decision on which teams play each other inter-conference is made by the standings the prior year matching up across the standings. The matchups hold for two years so the teams meet in a home-and-away scenario. The decision about who they don't play in conference is also based on standings in reverse order, top does not play bottom for two years. So I am starting with the standings of 2017, the whole thing would reset from the standings at the end of 2019, 2021, 2023, etc. In this proposal, starting this year

    -Fort Hays would play Ouachita Baptist in 2018 and 2019. Fort Hays would not play Missouri Southern those two years and Ouachita would not play East Central. Mo So and East Central would play each other twice.
    -Northwestern would play Harding in 2018 and 2019. Northwestern would not play NEO State those two years and Harding would not play Oklahoma Baptist. NEO State and Oklahoma Baptist would play each other twice.
    -Central Missouri would play Arky Tech in 2018 and 2019. Central Missouri would not play Kearney those two years and Arky Tech would not play SW Ok. St. Kearney and SW Ok. St. would play each other twice.
    -Pitt St. would play Southern Arky in 2018 and 2019. Pitt St. would not play Lindenwood those two years and Southern Arky would not play Southern Naz. Lindenwood and Southern Naz. would play each other twice.
    -Central O. would play SE Ok St. in 2018 and 2019. Central O. would not play Mo Western those two years and SE Ok St. would not play NW Ok. St. Mo Western and NW Ok. St. would play each other twice.
    -Emporia St. would play Henderson St. in 2018 and 2019. Emporia St. would not play Washburn those two years and Henderson St. would not play Ark-Mont. Washburn and Ark-Mont. would play each other twice.

    With just one out of conference game the scheduling would be pretty straight forward. i would recommend playing 5 conference games to start the season, then week 6 is the inter-conference game for every team then finish the season with 5 conference games.
    My thinking as far as using the standings is pretty straight forward, I believe teams tend to trend in their location over a couple years. Top teams tend to stay at the top and bottom teams at the bottom. So it doesn't necessarily hurt your best returning teams FHSU, NW Mo, Central Mo in this case if they actually lose in season to a top team from the other conference. And it certainly helps if they win those games. Likewise your bottom teams tend to take multiple years to dig themselves out of the bottom, but in this proposal at least you give the bottom teams a chance to chalk one up in the victory side by taking on a like bottom team from the other conference instead of taking a huge L by avoiding having to play the top teams for a couple years. The middle tier teams get to play the top teams in conference still to try and move up, play the bottom teams to keep their record polished and play a like middle tier across the other conference which could bolster their resume. I also don't think missing 1 conference game is going to upset the balance of how the standings would play out. The proposal is also straightforward for the athletic directors - they don't really have to worry about (or negotiate) who to schedule because it's decided by the standings.
    Finally, I think it's good for fans and D2 football to see some of these other teams play each other. Yes, it would mean setting aside some rivals for a few years sometimes, like Emporia vs. Washburn in the current scenario. But at the same time are we really that interested in seeing NW Mo take on NEO St. (that's not a rivalry) and not get to see them take on Harding for a couple years. I think in this proposal you'd see, especially at the top of the conferences, teams that have meet in the playoffs in the past become rivals. I think it also helps make even meaningless games at the end of the season have a purpose. You'll want to finish as high in the conference standings so going into the next couple years your schedule is likely to be increased by getting a slightly higher cross conference opponent.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    19,842
    Rep Power
    841391

    Default Re: Inter-conference Match-up Proposal

    It would work, but would essentially reward weak teams and punish strong ones.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    328
    Rep Power
    35416

    Default Re: Inter-conference Match-up Proposal

    Quote Originally Posted by Predatory Primates View Post
    It would work, but would essentially reward weak teams and punish strong ones.
    Yes, that could be a negative. Or the MIAA could show there are no weak teams

    Here's how it would look, every team currently has an opponents record of 66-66 or .500; so using my proposal the opponents records would look like this next year

    FHSU 75 57 132 0.568
    NW Mo 73 59 132 0.553
    UCM 71 61 132 0.538
    UCO 69 63 132 0.523
    PSU 69 63 132 0.523
    WU 66 66 132 0.500
    ESU 66 66 132 0.500
    LU 64 68 132 0.485
    MWSU 63 69 132 0.477
    UNK 61 71 132 0.462
    NEO 59 73 132 0.447
    MSU 57 75 132 0.432

    It certainly does, as you say, reward the lower teams and in a way punish the top teams. But it doesn't, IMO, throw things way out of wack. No team rises above 60% opponents winning schedule and no team falls below 40% opponent winning schedule.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Inter-conference Match-up Proposal

    I see three problems, one of which you addressed.
    1. I don't think you should base two years of scheduling off of one year's standings. For example Emporia State went 10-2, 9-2 in 2012-13, then went 4-7 when Wilson was hurt in 2014, then went 11-3, 11-2 in 2015-16 before going 6-5 in 2017. Conversely UCO was 2-8 in both 2012 and 2013, went 8-4, 7-5 in 2014-15, then 3-8 in 2016 and back to 8-4 in 2017. I think you need to look at two or three years worth of results rather than just one season so any fluke year - good or bad - is taken into account.
    2. How do you break ties? Each year from 2013-16 there was a three-way tie at some point in the standings. Not to mention you could have ties between teams that didn't play each other and matched the results against their common opponents.
    3. You have to let natural rivals play every year. The Turnpike Tussle is one of the best attended games of the year for both ESU and WU - especially if you consider that it has been a late season game for the last several years which in the MIAA traditionally means lower attendance as it gets colder. I think the same is true for MWSU against NWMSU and MSSU against Pitt State (at least for the Griffons and Lions). So to take away a game that is going to be less than an hour's drive for the most part, in order to play a team that could be 12 hours away (think St. Joe to Monticello, Ark.) just doesn't make sense.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Inter-conference Match-up Proposal

    Quote Originally Posted by Hornetfan View Post
    3. You have to let natural rivals play every year. The Turnpike Tussle is one of the best attended games of the year for both ESU and WU - especially if you consider that it has been a late season game for the last several years which in the MIAA traditionally means lower attendance as it gets colder. I think the same is true for MWSU against NWMSU and MSSU against Pitt State (at least for the Griffons and Lions). So to take away a game that is going to be less than an hour's drive for the most part, in order to play a team that could be 12 hours away (think St. Joe to Monticello, Ark.) just doesn't make sense.
    I very much agree with this point and even when I discuss having two non-conference games. Every thought I have is all about keeping things interesting. Hope I can explain it clearly enough. I'm trying to repeat the moments of excitement that I have felt in the past. This would be my view of an ideal season.

    Awesome to start the season and to see new teams....

    G1. Non-Conference Game
    G2. Non-Conference Game

    Now it's awesome to start the conference schedule. For those teams that might have lost both games, it's a time to reset and focus on the conference standings. In some ways it's the same way teams in basketball conference tournament play feel about their second chance. These games could be against non-rival opponents. For instance, ESU v. Missouri Southern, Missouri Western, and Lindenwood.

    G3. Conference Game
    G4. Conference Game
    G5. Conference Game

    Secondary Rival. I imagine for Emporia it would be a team like Pitt or Hays. For Northwest it would be Central or Pitt.

    G6. Secondary Rival

    Back to the grind of the conference schedule

    G7. Conference Game
    G8. Conference Game

    I think week 9 is a great time to play THE rival.

    G9. Primary Rival

    And for those in contention, it's a drive toward the playoffs.

    G10. Conference Game
    G11. Conference Game

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    328
    Rep Power
    35416

    Default Re: Inter-conference Match-up Proposal

    Quote Originally Posted by Hornetfan View Post
    I see three problems, one of which you addressed.
    1. I think you need to look at two or three years worth of results rather than just one season so any fluke year - good or bad - is taken into account.
    2. How do you break ties?
    3. You have to let natural rivals play every year.
    1. I would tend to agree, honestly I didn't want to try to do the math to look at a multi year schedule and how that would match teams up. I wanted the simplest approach first - it's kind of built on the same idea the state takes in reclassifying districts every two years. And I would only consider a multi year approach to schedule as long as it takes the athletic directors out of deciding which teams play.
    2. In general I don't see the real need to break ties. (especially if you go to a multi year standings approach). As long as the teams have played the winner is the tie breaker. If they haven't matched up, I don't see where it makes much of a difference because the selection committee for the playoffs isn't really concerned where you actually place in conference. Otherwise, if conferences really want to make sure they break ties, I think there is a number of ways they could do it, all conferences kind of have there own rules regarding this anyway.
    3. No they don't Okay, I'm a bit non-traditionalist, I personally don't feel the need that rivals play every year. I think it's more important to figure out a way to get a non-conference game into the schedule than try to keep a lineage game going. But, I respect the idea of rivals; so i'm not fully opposed to having each team keep one natural rival game.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon View Post
    I very much agree with this point and even when I discuss having two non-conference games. Every thought I have is all about keeping things interesting. Hope I can explain it clearly enough. I'm trying to repeat the moments of excitement that I have felt in the past. This would be my view of an ideal season.

    Awesome to start the season and to see new teams....

    G1. Non-Conference Game
    G2. Non-Conference Game

    Now it's awesome to start the conference schedule. For those teams that might have lost both games, it's a time to reset and focus on the conference standings. In some ways it's the same way teams in basketball conference tournament play feel about their second chance. These games could be against non-rival opponents. For instance, ESU v. Missouri Southern, Missouri Western, and Lindenwood.

    G3. Conference Game
    G4. Conference Game
    G5. Conference Game

    Secondary Rival. I imagine for Emporia it would be a team like Pitt or Hays. For Northwest it would be Central or Pitt.

    G6. Secondary Rival

    Back to the grind of the conference schedule

    G7. Conference Game
    G8. Conference Game

    I think week 9 is a great time to play THE rival.

    G9. Primary Rival

    And for those in contention, it's a drive toward the playoffs.

    G10. Conference Game
    G11. Conference Game

    This kind of reminds me of Mel’s old approach to scheduling: schedule a non-con against a strong team from another conference and use that game as a yardstick and incentive for the team from the outset.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Denton County, TX
    Posts
    10,934
    Rep Power
    172486

    Default Re: Inter-conference Match-up Proposal

    Quote Originally Posted by EveryCatAWildman View Post
    I'd like to see the MIAA and GAC conferences work out a way to have teams play each other every year. Arkansas and Oklahoma are close in proximity to allow fairly easy travel for all teams and GAC puts out a fairly competitive product, certainly at the top of their conference anyway. Both have 12 teams and only play intra-conference games hampering the playoff selection committee and strength of schedule numbers. This is my proposal (and I'm basically prepared to be ridiculed).

    The decision on which teams play each other inter-conference is made by the standings the prior year matching up across the standings. The matchups hold for two years so the teams meet in a home-and-away scenario. The decision about who they don't play in conference is also based on standings in reverse order, top does not play bottom for two years. So I am starting with the standings of 2017, the whole thing would reset from the standings at the end of 2019, 2021, 2023, etc. In this proposal, starting this year

    -Fort Hays would play Ouachita Baptist in 2018 and 2019. Fort Hays would not play Missouri Southern those two years and Ouachita would not play East Central. Mo So and East Central would play each other twice.
    -Northwestern would play Harding in 2018 and 2019. Northwestern would not play NEO State those two years and Harding would not play Oklahoma Baptist. NEO State and Oklahoma Baptist would play each other twice.
    -Central Missouri would play Arky Tech in 2018 and 2019. Central Missouri would not play Kearney those two years and Arky Tech would not play SW Ok. St. Kearney and SW Ok. St. would play each other twice.
    -Pitt St. would play Southern Arky in 2018 and 2019. Pitt St. would not play Lindenwood those two years and Southern Arky would not play Southern Naz. Lindenwood and Southern Naz. would play each other twice.
    -Central O. would play SE Ok St. in 2018 and 2019. Central O. would not play Mo Western those two years and SE Ok St. would not play NW Ok. St. Mo Western and NW Ok. St. would play each other twice.
    -Emporia St. would play Henderson St. in 2018 and 2019. Emporia St. would not play Washburn those two years and Henderson St. would not play Ark-Mont. Washburn and Ark-Mont. would play each other twice.

    With just one out of conference game the scheduling would be pretty straight forward. i would recommend playing 5 conference games to start the season, then week 6 is the inter-conference game for every team then finish the season with 5 conference games.
    My thinking as far as using the standings is pretty straight forward, I believe teams tend to trend in their location over a couple years. Top teams tend to stay at the top and bottom teams at the bottom. So it doesn't necessarily hurt your best returning teams FHSU, NW Mo, Central Mo in this case if they actually lose in season to a top team from the other conference. And it certainly helps if they win those games. Likewise your bottom teams tend to take multiple years to dig themselves out of the bottom, but in this proposal at least you give the bottom teams a chance to chalk one up in the victory side by taking on a like bottom team from the other conference instead of taking a huge L by avoiding having to play the top teams for a couple years. The middle tier teams get to play the top teams in conference still to try and move up, play the bottom teams to keep their record polished and play a like middle tier across the other conference which could bolster their resume. I also don't think missing 1 conference game is going to upset the balance of how the standings would play out. The proposal is also straightforward for the athletic directors - they don't really have to worry about (or negotiate) who to schedule because it's decided by the standings.
    Finally, I think it's good for fans and D2 football to see some of these other teams play each other. Yes, it would mean setting aside some rivals for a few years sometimes, like Emporia vs. Washburn in the current scenario. But at the same time are we really that interested in seeing NW Mo take on NEO St. (that's not a rivalry) and not get to see them take on Harding for a couple years. I think in this proposal you'd see, especially at the top of the conferences, teams that have meet in the playoffs in the past become rivals. I think it also helps make even meaningless games at the end of the season have a purpose. You'll want to finish as high in the conference standings so going into the next couple years your schedule is likely to be increased by getting a slightly higher cross conference opponent.
    I could be mistaken, but I believe Armo Wood suggested two 'cross-over' GAC vs. MIAA teams a year or two ago as a way to snap the silo scheduling scheme of both leagues (though, that thread seemed to be lost to the purges of years past). That said, rather than base it by standings, as you've suggested, perhaps the pairings for a hypothetical two-game inter-conference series could be based on geographic travel partners (ie. Pitt State/MoSo and Harding/Arkansas Tech).
    Cal U (Pa.) Class of 2014

  9. #9

    Default Re: Inter-conference Match-up Proposal

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon View Post
    I very much agree with this point and even when I discuss having two non-conference games. Every thought I have is all about keeping things interesting. Hope I can explain it clearly enough. I'm trying to repeat the moments of excitement that I have felt in the past. This would be my view of an ideal season.

    Awesome to start the season and to see new teams....

    G1. Non-Conference Game
    G2. Non-Conference Game

    Now it's awesome to start the conference schedule. For those teams that might have lost both games, it's a time to reset and focus on the conference standings. In some ways it's the same way teams in basketball conference tournament play feel about their second chance. These games could be against non-rival opponents. For instance, ESU v. Missouri Southern, Missouri Western, and Lindenwood.

    G3. Conference Game
    G4. Conference Game
    G5. Conference Game

    Secondary Rival. I imagine for Emporia it would be a team like Pitt or Hays. For Northwest it would be Central or Pitt.

    G6. Secondary Rival

    Back to the grind of the conference schedule

    G7. Conference Game
    G8. Conference Game

    I think week 9 is a great time to play THE rival.

    G9. Primary Rival

    And for those in contention, it's a drive toward the playoffs.

    G10. Conference Game
    G11. Conference Game
    Brandon, I really like this set up. Great for the teams and their fans.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Inter-conference Match-up Proposal

    Quote Originally Posted by PSR View Post
    Brandon, I really like this set up. Great for the teams and their fans.
    Thanks PSR. Alabama and Tennessee get to play the same weekend every year. I'm sure the MIAA schedule could be manipulated in much of the same manner.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Northville, MI (after over 35 yrs in Midland, MI)
    Posts
    7,000
    Rep Power
    88200

    Default Re: Inter-conference Match-up Proposal

    I get the convenience, and it is better than no OOC games, but does it help selections and SOS? True, it won't be .500, but limiting play to one other conference, IMO, doesn't do all that much to help measure the strength of any team. Again, it's better than nothing, and it would indeed result in some number SOS differential. I guess I see this more as a means to have different SOS numbers as opposed to a means to determine the strength or weakness of teams.

    And I do get that money is an issue, but this would also prevent both conferences from scheduling unique teams along the way.
    Still, if it's this vs what currently is in place? Sign me up.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Inter-conference Match-up Proposal

    Quote Originally Posted by Redwing View Post
    I get the convenience, and it is better than no OOC games, but does it help selections and SOS? True, it won't be .500, but limiting play to one other conference, IMO, doesn't do all that much to help measure the strength of any team. Again, it's better than nothing, and it would indeed result in some number SOS differential. I guess I see this more as a means to have different SOS numbers as opposed to a means to determine the strength or weakness of teams.

    And I do get that money is an issue, but this would also prevent both conferences from scheduling unique teams along the way.
    Still, if it's this vs what currently is in place? Sign me up.
    My assumption is that the NSIC would be involved as well. They are the conference most open to changing the schedule.

    It would be cool to include unique teams as well. I would remove the regional opponents criteria and simply make sure that D2 schools are playing D2 schools, no matter where they are from.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Northville, MI (after over 35 yrs in Midland, MI)
    Posts
    7,000
    Rep Power
    88200

    Default Re: Inter-conference Match-up Proposal

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon View Post
    My assumption is that the NSIC would be involved as well. They are the conference most open to changing the schedule.

    It would be cool to include unique teams as well. I would remove the regional opponents criteria and simply make sure that D2 schools are playing D2 schools, no matter where they are from.
    No argument here. On the surface, it sounds so straightforward. I may forever never understand why the NCAA (AD's/Presidents??) do what they do.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    19,842
    Rep Power
    841391

    Default Re: Inter-conference Match-up Proposal

    I like the idea of non cons, but absolutely hate having a conference where everyone doesn't play everyone. That leads to a ****show where an inferior team makes the playoffs over a better team more often than not.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Inter-conference Match-up Proposal

    Quote Originally Posted by Predatory Primates View Post
    I like the idea of non cons, but absolutely hate having a conference where everyone doesn't play everyone. That leads to a ****show where an inferior team makes the playoffs over a better team more often than not.
    How so?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Northville, MI (after over 35 yrs in Midland, MI)
    Posts
    7,000
    Rep Power
    88200

    Default Re: Inter-conference Match-up Proposal

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon View Post
    How so?
    We've seen it in the GLIAC at times (when it was an unbalanced schedule) and by chance the top teams played each other and a lesser team wouldn't have a couple of the top teams on the schedule. Obviously, when 3 top teams play each other, a "top" team will come out with a loss or two. If the lesser teams gets to avoid playing them, and gets the lesser opponent, they can jump into the PO's. Theoretically, SOS SHOULD take care of it, but I think we know how that's a crap shoot.

  17. #17

    Default

    To *attempt* to preserve rivalries, each conference could go to 6-team divisions. However, you’ll have some sort of imbalance in team strength and will have to cede some type of “rivalry” games per se. ie, Pitt wouldn’t likely be able to play NW and MOSO every year and still play Emporia, Washburn, and FH its in-state “rivals.” You could play 5 division games, 3 conference non-division, and 2 non-con to start the year?

    How you’d split the conference could be a fun practice and uproar this board could use to spice up the summer!

    No matter how you shake it, there will be winners and losers as an outcome but life’s not fair




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  18. #18

    Default Re: Inter-conference Match-up Proposal

    Quote Originally Posted by Redwing View Post
    We've seen it in the GLIAC at times (when it was an unbalanced schedule) and by chance the top teams played each other and a lesser team wouldn't have a couple of the top teams on the schedule. Obviously, when 3 top teams play each other, a "top" team will come out with a loss or two. If the lesser teams gets to avoid playing them, and gets the lesser opponent, they can jump into the PO's. Theoretically, SOS SHOULD take care of it, but I think we know how that's a crap shoot.
    Oh I agree that it could happen. I guess I was interested in the "more often than not" part.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Inter-conference Match-up Proposal

    Quote Originally Posted by Erbert View Post
    To *attempt* to preserve rivalries, each conference could go to 6-team divisions. However, you’ll have some sort of imbalance in team strength and will have to cede some type of “rivalry” games per se. ie, Pitt wouldn’t likely be able to play NW and MOSO every year and still play Emporia, Washburn, and FH its in-state “rivals.” You could play 5 division games, 3 conference non-division, and 2 non-con to start the year?

    How you’d split the conference could be a fun practice and uproar this board could use to spice up the summer!

    No matter how you shake it, there will be winners and losers as an outcome but life’s not fair

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I assume people would like the Red split versus the Neon split.


  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    23,176
    Rep Power
    1000000

    Default Re: Inter-conference Match-up Proposal

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon View Post
    I assume people would like the Red split versus the Neon split.

    Yeah, I don't think splitting ESU and WU would get much traction with the fans (or UNK and FHSU, but I don't have a good feel for how passionate that rivalry is).

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •