But even that creates problems which rivalries get cut under that scenario? And it’s just my idea with more steps.
That is not what happens with permanent rivals. 3 permanent rivals plus 6 rotational games is literally the same math as 4x4 pods. They just allow for better flexibility, specificity and compromise than pods.
1 Like
Give a specific example of how pods cuts more rivalries.
But does it also guarantee everyone a game in Texas every year?
It can the exact same way as pods. With the rotation of 6 teams, just have at least one or two of the Texas teams in separate rotations.
Yes, it can. Very easily.
Which is where i lean, im okay not playing CU, AZ, Utah, Az st, i just wanted to play BYU.
Media rules though, they want Colorado UCF they gonna get it.
Edit* i thought AAC was entertaining, i will be happy playing Baylor year after year never seeing Utah once
Ok so Colorado has 2 rivalries with Utah and Kansas St. which mean under the protected rivalries thing they have to play each other every year. And Utah has rivalries with the AZ schools and BYU. That means Utah has 4 games against BYU, ASU, AZ, and Colorado, that have to be played every year. Then you also have to ensure they play in Texas every year, and obviously you can’t do just one team at home every year so you will have to play 2 Texas school. Thats six games total that can’t really be changed. So you have 3 left against 10 teams. That means you could go 5 years without playing a certain team as Utah.
For Utah you would have 6 inflexible games alone. (4 rivalries and 2 Texas schools) That means only 3 open games for 10 teams.
I wanna hear from the other presidents… because if they decide regionality of novelty i wont be surprised. UH will be on the east coast tour
Well TV and money are drivin by rivalries and I made what I think is the best scenario that will make the least amount of people angry.
1 Like
Bottom line is there is an easy solution that makes the fanbases happy. I’d absolutely hate a two division scenario where we play an opponent from another division once every 4 years.
3 permanent rivals, 9 conference games and rotate your 6 remaining games back and forth between the remaining 12 schools. You get a home and away with all other schools every 4 years.
EP suggested this formula. It works perfect. UH is likely to get stuck with UCF, Cincy, WVU as permanent rivals but I’d be elated with this if it meant Baylor, Tech, TCU, and Ok St were split among alternate years. Get Tech/Ok St one year and Baylor/TCU the next. That way you get some of that Texas flavor every season.
What are you talking about?
Every school gets only 3 protected permanent rivals that they play every year. That’s 3 games. Leaving 6 rotational games for the other 12 teams meaning you play every team once every 2 seasons. This is very simple.
Trying way too hard, and you seem to have no clue how permanent rivals works.
Permanent rivals - each school gets three others they play each year (same numbers as pods), except they get three of their preferred opponents as opposed to just what group they are stuck in.
All schools get equal treatment of getting teams they generally prefer (probably two great ones and one decent per school), as opposed to one school getting stuck with no one, as in your colorado example with Cincy, WVU and UCF - total screw job. This way each of the old Big 8 schools can have some of the past rivals equally - no favoritism.
1 Like
Is playing every team once every 2-3 years really that important? There are quite a few teams in our conference I’d be fine not playing unless in a championship game. Moving towards super conferences, maximizing tv revenue outweighs me wanting to watch UH play West Virginia, iowa state, etc.
That is a fair answer.
Perhaps if you had two divisions that split well for that thought, it would work. Unfortunately, I am not sure we could find a good split like that for all the schools where everyone in one division would agree they are not that interested in the other division.
Because tbh, after listening to the ASU prez (despite people being upset for holding up the deal), they have full interest to keep scheduling Stanford and Cal for football and the entire Cal-USC university system for other sports.
2 Likes
I agree that rivalries are important, and we are giving examples of what we think are good options. This is why I am asking about why pods over permanent rivals. It is a developmental process to get to a strong answer for the conference (at least as fans since I doubt powers that be are posting here)
1 Like
So then what are we arguing because that’s literally been my argument from the beginning? I’ve been saying create pods based around the most important rivalries. The problem is so many of the schools have different rivalries and desires that it’s impossible to create one that doesn’t make someone mad.
It was starting to get complaints in the SEC which is why they are changing away from divisions. I think it is important to see what has been successful in the past and what complaints there have been to learn from it as opposed to recreating it from scratch.