Topic: Designing CUSA 3.0 scheduling format from the ground up to get that bowl invite

[_sturt_]

I was incorporporating aspects of the other proposal into this one, in regards to the MAC.  My mistake.

Not to make work, but I'd love to see an example of how a season might pan out.  I have a PhD in 3-dimensional Laser Calculus but still can't see how the top 4 teams will play the bottom two in the first 2 weeks to line up the "third game being versus one of the first teams in the current season to achieve two losses". Also, and I may be reading this wrong, but how are there enough 2 loss teams guaranteed to play the top 4 seeds? Even if I am mis-reading and the concept is for the top 4 to play the bottom 2 over 3 weeks, how can that work?

Probably staring me in the face, but I can't see it without example.

Beyond that, I just see a logistical nightmare in not knowing who you will play or where for what looks now to look like 4 games per year, right particularly with consideration, as noted, to give each team an equal number of home and aways.

Scheduling 6 OOC games still, IMO, would pull the SOS down even further because we would not be scheduling Pitt or WVU any more than we are now, probably dipping into FCS. Besides, teams have full schedules every year now with conference and OOC already.  Where will 16 CUSA teams find 2 more OOC games per year?

Not much different from you... I had to start with pencil and paper, and then worked my way into an Excel file. I'm not sure how easily translated it is, but I did work something up as I thought it through, and could send it to you if you'd like. (It's very vertical, otherwise I'd take a screenshot of it and just post that.)

Not to be picky but... 14... CUSA teams.

Of course, I've already asserted that we can't do much worse with those 2 additional OOC games, but I'd like to build on that.

And yet, before I do, there's another issue that no one's brought up yet that I think has to be considered, and that is, if you go with this format, you're all-in on the premise that your conference champ to have the best possible shot at the major bowl... which pretty much rules out geographic rivalries.

Thus, under this structure, you don't know if you're playing Old Dominion and Western Kentucky or UTEP and UTSA in a given season... there's no guarantee that you'll play a game in Florida.

So having said that, let me throw out this sunroom addition to the house built in the initial post...

That is, let's add the clause that CUSA schools may contract with as many as 3 others in the conference to fill those 6 dates... so, even potentially reducing the number of OOC games rather than adding to them.

And, let's say that if you choose to do that, then those games do count as conference games... thus, they do affect seeding for the current season's games. So, UAB may have had a sucky 2013, but having scheduled 3 September games with other conference mates, those games give them a shot at raising their seeding in the stripes pool bracket. Similarly, Marshall may have finished runner-up to Rice in 2013, and may mirror Rice in running the table in the Stars Pool games, but potentially could play and win games against MTSU and FAU that end up nudging them into the #1 seed for the R/W/B round. Alternatively, Hamrick may feel his program is better served by trying to fill all 6 of the slots with stronger competition since he knows the three Stars games will be against some of the conference's weakest competition.

So... by establishing that clause, your concerns are more than remedied, even potentially reducing OOC games to 3 if a given AD sees advantage in that... and my concerns are more than remedied, giving an AD some additional control he doesn't currently have, free to pursue even a very ambitious schedule, having more dates available to him to do that.

Kosher?

[IM4DHERD]

It can be massaged to work in theory, but I just can't see not knowing week to week who you will play or where in season and getting people to buy into season tickets.  The logistics surrounding the actual schedule still make this unworkable...Nice thinking tho.

[banker]

Not avoiding the question, but as your comment about what you might do for late evening entertainment reaffirmed... this isn't about any sincere interest on your part. And to suggest that I "hate being questioned" when, unlike yourself, I pretty much respect almost every poster enough to offer some reply? I call horse puckey on the allegation. I only disrespect... not hate, but disrespect... the questions of the insincere... the questions of those who regard their role as Divinity, only judging, not participating in attempting to figure out something better.

Patience extinguished. Line drawn. Too bad. The season ticket question itself is valid. Doesn't mean it doesn't have an answer, of course. But it's an important question that has to be considered.

And there it is.  When you don't want to, or can't, answer you simply come up with an excuse to not have to. "I'm not going to answer because the question is insincere".  You have been presented with more than one challenge to your proposed system that you simply don't have a solution for.  Rather than acknowledge that, and therefore admit that this has all been a waste of your time, you just choose to ignore the problems.

And it's not just the ticket question that is valid.  The cost, logistics, preparation, and change in relative strength of teams year to year due to roster turnover are all also valid.  Just go ahead and call me a meanie..hehe..and continue to ignore the obstacles.

[_sturt_]

I can be massagesd to work in theory, but I just can't see not knowing week to week who you will play or where in season and getting people to buy into season tickets.  The logistics surrounding the actual schedule still make this unworkable...Nice thinking tho.

All good.

As to the ambiguity of who you play over those seven weeks, I don't know what else to say. It's done every year in FCS/I-AA playoffs, and not just in theory. We've seen it up close. If anyone can testify that it works, Marshall fans of Chaump/Donnan/Pruett eras can. There's nothing unique to one that isn't equivalent with the other.

But I believe the season ticket part is, as I indicated, worthy of more discussion.

Notably, at least 7-8 games are pre-set. So the discussion really focuses exclusively on those 4-5 second-half of the season games.

Do season tickets get sold based on what games fans see on the schedule, or based on their enthusiasm for their team's likelihood of success for the coming season?

Are there any similar ventures to this, where you fork over some money, but can't actually look at a schedule that says who and when for a fact you're going to play?

Might be others, but what about a... well... tournament? People don't buy tournament tickets until they know who they're playing right? Well, obviously, wrong. It is sufficient just to know that your school is part of it.

There's a viable argument, then, that actual affect on season ticket sales is zero in the first year; and in the second year, having actually experienced an environment where almost all teams have something to play for well into November, I'd even be bullish enough to say several schools would see an increase in sales.

So, fwiw, I feel pretty solid about this concept with one important caveat... it, indeed, would be a mathematical challenge to ensure that everyone gets their 3 home games, and that is very unlikely to occur 100% of the time.

And of course it works both ways... might end up with the occasional 2 home game second-half of the season, might end up with the occasional 4 home game second-half.

Having said that... there are ways to deal with the revenue side of that equation so that that part is remedied. Maybe it could be that those things are rebalanced the following year, with teams that enjoyed an extra game and those that were shorted a game being earmarked to either have 1 less or 1 more home game.

[_sturt_]

And there it is.  When you don't want to, or can't, answer you simply come up with an excuse to not have to. "I'm not going to answer because the question is insincere".  You have been presented with more than one challenge to your proposed system that you simply don't have a solution for.  Rather than acknowledge that, and therefore admit that this has all been a waste of your time, you just choose to ignore the problems.

And it's not just the ticket question that is valid.  The cost, logistics, preparation, and change in relative strength of teams year to year due to roster turnover are all also valid.  Just go ahead and call me a meanie..hehe..and continue to ignore the obstacles.

Don't flatter yourself, Moses. You aren't mean. And even if you were, it's nothing to me. I call you strange because no one even barely stalks my posts like you do. I call you a cynic. I make light of how you pose yourself as the Ultimate Judge. No dispute from you on any of those points. As already explained, I just am not going to overlook the level of disingenuous-ness you openly embrace any longer. Crosses a line there. And to the contrary, I have and will continue to answer questions from almost all comers. Well, except from the one person with whom patience has been extinguished. But hey, at least that makes you special. Come to think of it, maybe you should feel flattered after all.

[banker]

Well, I'm not sure it would be worth reading the answer you would give anyway.  Anyone who compares this plan to the FCS playoffs obviously can't grasp the point.  FCS teams play a full regular season schedule including a full conference schedule. That's what the schools sell season tickets for.  So the school, fans, and town know exactly when and where those games are going to be held before the season starts. The playoffs only involve 16 teams, then only 8, then 4 then only 2. Your plan would impact 26 teams week after week.

You don't want to answer because there is no answer that makes any sense. And yes, that's a definitive statement that happens to be correct.

[_sturt_]

Well, I'm not sure it would be worth reading the answer you would give anyway.  Anyone who compares this plan to the FCS playoffs obviously can't grasp the point.  FCS teams play a full regular season schedule including a full conference schedule. That's what the schools sell season tickets for.  So the school, fans, and town know exactly when and where those games are going to be held before the season starts. The playoffs only involve 16 teams, then only 8, then 4 then only 2. Your plan would impact 26 teams week after week.

You don't want to answer because there is no answer that makes any sense. And yes, that's a definitive statement that happens to be correct.

So many incoherencies for a few sentences, consider my chain yanked. But as much as I would love to correct you, there's nothing I could say that either hasn't already been said or that isn't already within your intelligence to figure out for yourself. So, I'm just not reacting anymore. Patience extinguished. Line drawn.

[banker]

You could have just typed "cop out" because that's all your post says.  If you found my first two sentences incoherent it's amazing you can tie your own shoes.

[_sturt_]

You could have just typed "cop out" because that's all your post says.  If you found my first two sentences incoherent it's amazing you can tie your own shoes.

Thanks, Moses. I'll work on that.