This pod system actually worked well for a 14-team conference, playing out-of-pod teams every other year, so visiting out-of-pod campuses every four years. Every conference should replace divisions with pods However, I've not seen anything that provides for a 16-team conference the ability to guarantee visits to out-of-division or out-of-pod campuses in anything better than 10 years unless the in-conference schedule is increased to 9 games. Up to now, everything I've seen is that the SEC has been vehemently opposed to 9-game conference schedules. However, being in a brave new world, perhaps we're on the road to 15-game conference schedules since a 16-team SEC no longer needs the non-conference games to determine the national champion?
kp, a pod system has 4 teams in each pod, who play every year. Then they rotate in the other teams per a formula dependent on how many conference games there are as Kesley mentioned... How about A&M, tu (now that you're back, you get your old moniker!), OU, and LSU in a pod???
Thanks for that article Kes, it looks like the pods are a lot more flexible than I'd thought. With only 3 permanent opponents, it makes for a much easier sched to balance. I like it.
I said above that they were more leagues than conferences...pod system would be what the NFL divisions are, wouldn't they?
Yeah, this idea was quite a bit different than the pod systems that were discussed back when P12 was considering expanding to 16. In that one, you had a "square" of pods in which each year you would play: - your three in-pod teams (home / home in alternate years) - two of the four teams in each of the "adjacent" pods (rotate through home / home cycle every four years) - one of the four teams in the "diagonal" pod (rotate through home / home cycle every 8 years) Not only would the diagonal pod end up with seeing 25% of the conference once a decade, but it killed likelihood of continuing out-of-pod rivalries (unless you added a 9th conference game, or doubled the occurrence of the diagonal pod sequence). On top of that, the pod scheduled were extremely susceptible to level of difficulty variance. While the pod system described in the article does address the rotation cycle much more capably vs. what I had understood previously, it was pretty much limited to a 14-team schedule. I don't see that translating well to 16-team rotations without the same weaknesses without a 9th conference game. It also does not address out-of-pod rivalries very well unless they are in "adjacent" pods, but then that again increases those "diagonal" pod cycle issues once again. As Stu points out, this becomes a "league" or division rather than a CONFERENCE. Which is really why I was (and am) against anything beyond the 14-team pod system in that article.
Don't get me wrong Kp, that is a compliment to how good Bama is. So yes I want to play Bama but not every year right now. Actually if there is two divisions there is going to be very good teams in both. But at this point in time I would rather play about anybody every year over Bama every year. But that is selfish I know.
Ok here's my question about the Pod system, just how do you determine what teams play for the conference championship?
Bill, my point is that we have just added 2 very good programs. The strength of schedule just went up for all of us.
Reasonable article Stu, but while there will be problems there will also be rewards. I see this working in the long run and being very lucrative for the SEC members.
These are "supposedly" the 24 Super Teams that TV programmers want in any super league. So let’s try to populate the list of schools that any conference should want. Remember, this isn’t based necessarily on on-field performance. It’s based on what TV programmers would want in their inventory. … Alabama Auburn Clemson Florida Florida State Georgia Iowa LSU Miami Michigan Michigan State Nebraska Notre Dame Ohio State Oklahoma Oregon Penn State Tennessee Texas Texas A&M USC Virginia Tech Washington Wisconsin That’s 24 locks. These are the schools that any league should take if that school wants to come aboard. Of course, 15 of these are in the Big Ten or the SEC and two are moving to the SEC. The other seven are in the ACC or the Pac-12, and if given a truth serum, their leaders probably would say they’d be better off in the Big Ten or the SEC. That doesn’t mean that would be the entire list if some kind of Super League did form in college football. There is an equal number of teams not on that list that could make a compelling case. But they’d have to do some convincing. The same goes for schools trying to get into the best conferences now. If you’re on that list, someone probably wants you. If you’re not, you’ll need to do a lot of politicking.
Interesting list Terry. I don't see any of the remaining Big 12 teams on there. And what about Basketball. Kansas, Duke, North Carolina, Baylor and UCLA quickly come to mind and I am sure others.
Bill, I suspect if this "super league/conference" model were to be pursued, it would be outside the NCAA which owns the basketball side of things. Football would become it's own animal with no considerations to the other sports.
Probably right Scott, but the same schools also have basketball programs and they can be a draw during BB season. But your point is well taken. I don't know just where we are headed with all this but I guess we will just have to let it play out.