Combined WAC/MWC

[Judge Smails]

I posted about a Royal Rumble on another thread (riveting stuff). This got me to thinking about something -

A while back somebody on CG or CB proposed a similar concept of a "Champions League" similar to European Soccer (trust me, I have no concept how Euro Futbol works), where we combine the WAC and the MWC and each season you have a Top Division and a Bottom Division based on prior year results.

What if you took it one step further - each of the 18 teams plays their 3 OOC games + 3 "preliminary" conference games in the first 6 weeks of the season. All teams leave 6 open dates on their schedule but the game are TBD based on how they played in the first round. You could even weight it, so that the prior year champions get the easiest schedule (not #16/17/18, but maybe #6/12/18). The lower tier teams have to improve and prove it by beating top tier teams (#1/7/13 for the worst team). After the first 3 weeks of the conference season, the top 10 teams are assigned to the upper division where the schedule is completed. The bottom 8 teams play their remaining 6 games against each other.

You could schedule in advance the home teams for the 'championship' rounds, leaving a little room for potential adjustment based on the mix.

If flights/hotels/etc are a consideration, the conference could do their best to schedule conference games as early as possible, then play OOC games with a bye in the mix before the split.

This would be intriguing, it would greatly improve our strength of schedule (assuming we're in the top division), possibly to the point of being worth a BCS auto bid.

We'd probably make this a "joint venture" between the 2 conference for football purposes, and leave the conferences in tact for all other sports.

This is way outside the box, and I've probably oversimplified the difficulty of pulling it off, but it's pretty cool if you're asking me. Kudos to whoever came up with the framework.

[MikeWaters]

are you nuts? we can't even think outside the box enough to get on tv.

[Ace Tomato Co.]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

I've probably oversimplified the difficulty of pulling it off.

Gee, ya think?

Dumb idea.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

I posted about a Royal Rumble on another thread (riveting stuff). This got me to thinking about something -

A while back somebody on CG or CB proposed a similar concept of a "Champions League" similar to European Soccer (trust me, I have no concept how Euro Futbol works), where we combine the WAC and the MWC and each season you have a Top Division and a Bottom Division based on prior year results.

What if you took it one step further - each of the 18 teams plays their 3 OOC games + 3 "preliminary" conference games in the first 6 weeks of the season. All teams leave 6 open dates on their schedule but the game are TBD based on how they played in the first round. You could even weight it, so that the prior year champions get the easiest schedule (not #16/17/18, but maybe #6/12/18). The lower tier teams have to improve and prove it by beating top tier teams (#1/7/13 for the worst team). After the first 3 weeks of the conference season, the top 10 teams are assigned to the upper division where the schedule is completed. The bottom 8 teams play their remaining 6 games against each other.

You could schedule in advance the home teams for the 'championship' rounds, leaving a little room for potential adjustment based on the mix.

If flights/hotels/etc are a consideration, the conference could do their best to schedule conference games as early as possible, then play OOC games with a bye in the mix before the split.

This would be intriguing, it would greatly improve our strength of schedule (assuming we're in the top division), possibly to the point of being worth a BCS auto bid.

We'd probably make this a "joint venture" between the 2 conference for football purposes, and leave the conferences in tact for all other sports.

This is way outside the box, and I've probably oversimplified the difficulty of pulling it off, but it's pretty cool if you're asking me. Kudos to whoever came up with the framework.

What a bunch of uninteresting bloat.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

I posted about a Royal Rumble on another thread (riveting stuff). This got me to thinking about something -

A while back somebody on CG or CB proposed a similar concept of a "Champions League" similar to European Soccer (trust me, I have no concept how Euro Futbol works), where we combine the WAC and the MWC and each season you have a Top Division and a Bottom Division based on prior year results.

What if you took it one step further - each of the 18 teams plays their 3 OOC games + 3 "preliminary" conference games in the first 6 weeks of the season. All teams leave 6 open dates on their schedule but the game are TBD based on how they played in the first round. You could even weight it, so that the prior year champions get the easiest schedule (not #16/17/18, but maybe #6/12/18). The lower tier teams have to improve and prove it by beating top tier teams (#1/7/13 for the worst team). After the first 3 weeks of the conference season, the top 10 teams are assigned to the upper division where the schedule is completed. The bottom 8 teams play their remaining 6 games against each other.

You could schedule in advance the home teams for the 'championship' rounds, leaving a little room for potential adjustment based on the mix.

If flights/hotels/etc are a consideration, the conference could do their best to schedule conference games as early as possible, then play OOC games with a bye in the mix before the split.

This would be intriguing, it would greatly improve our strength of schedule (assuming we're in the top division), possibly to the point of being worth a BCS auto bid.

We'd probably make this a "joint venture" between the 2 conference for football purposes, and leave the conferences in tact for all other sports.

This is way outside the box, and I've probably oversimplified the difficulty of pulling it off, but it's pretty cool if you're asking me. Kudos to whoever came up with the framework.

Premiere league--English professional league. Like major league/minor league baseball but bottom teams shuffle down and top teams from minors move up each year.

Champions league--totally different. Take top teams from each countries leagues and play World Cup format, round robin with groups, moving up to sweet 16 and one and done tournament.

I've been the one bringing it up. I love the idea.

Take 16 teams and create two groups that act as completely different leagues, with different financials, different TV contracts, etc. You move up or down each year not just on prior year record but based on various criteria such as record and attendance and TV ratings. So the money makers would probably never move down. But if a school like UTEP hired a great coach and had some good years and invested in facilities, they could move up quickly. The idea being you're always going to have the best football schools in the conference and not have to redo your conference every ten years when the balance of power switches.

You'd also do the same for BB. So you could invite UNLV and AFA and not have them drag you down in the sport they're no good at.

The problem would be that it would improve BYU, Utah, Boise, Fresno's position but hurt Wyo, SDSU, SJSU, NMSU so there wouldn't be widespread support and it's risky and out-of-the-box to begin with. So it will never happen.

[Judge Smails]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Premiere league--English professional league. Like major league/minor league baseball but bottom teams shuffle down and top teams from minors move up each year.

Champions league--totally different. Take top teams from each countries leagues and play World Cup format, round robin with groups, moving up to sweet 16 and one and done tournament.

I've been the one bringing it up. I love the idea.

Take 16 teams and create two groups that act as completely different leagues, with different financials, different TV contracts, etc. You move up or down each year not just on prior year record but based on various criteria such as record and attendance and TV ratings. So the money makers would probably never move down. But if a school like UTEP hired a great coach and had some good years and invested in facilities, they could move up quickly. The idea being you're always going to have the best football schools in the conference and not have to redo your conference every ten years when the balance of power switches.

You'd also do the same for BB. So you could invite UNLV and AFA and not have them drag you down in the sport they're no good at.

The problem would be that it would improve BYU, Utah, Boise, Fresno's position but hurt Wyo, SDSU, SJSU, NMSU so there wouldn't be widespread support and it's risky and out-of-the-box to begin with. So it will never happen.

Oh, I'm quite confident it will never happen, but it would be awesome, though I'd dump the attendance, etc garbage. It's all about wins. If BYU sucked, they'd deserve to be in the bottom group (see 2002-2004). Plus the Wyomings would be more agreeable if all they had to do was win to move up.

You're right, this would eliminate the fear of adding Boise St because even if they suck down the road, you never have to play them.

I'd add that bowl revenues be split at a higher proportion in the upper division.

[creekster]

Seems like it would play havoc with recruiting. Imagine being recurited by the a school living among the dregs of the WAC/MWC or by a school that might be there soon.