- Banned
- #1
marccooper
ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Offline
I came up with this idea about a month ago and think it could really work. Let me know what you think.
At the end of each bowl season, all division I-A college football teams are paired with the most similarly ranked team in their conference as a 'rival pair'. If there are an odd number of teams in the conference, the lowest ranked has no rival.
For example, some rival pairs might be LSU and Florida, USC and Cal, Ohio State and Michigan.
During the offseason, each team may schedule 1 game on behalf of their rival by negotiating with the rival of the team outside their conference they would like them to play. For example, in the above scenario, Cal could approach Florida to discuss scheduling an LSU vs. USC matchup. This would benefit both Cal and Florida by increasing their chances of winning their conference, rising in the rankings, and appearing in a bowl game because their rival would have a good chance of being beat.
USC could also approach LSU and propose that Cal play Florida, but LSU would likely refuse because Cal would not have a reasonable chance of beating Florida. Instead, LSU might approach Michigan or Ohio State to attempt to match Florida against the other. USC might need to approach the rival of a team like Boise State, Auburn, Georgia, etc to find a team attractive to both parties, because the game could easily go either way.
What this would create is a market for balanced matchups. Every team would play 1 extra out-of-conference closely matched and highly competitive game each year. Great teams in weak divisions would no longer have such an advantage because they would have 1 game a year against an equally great team in another division.
Every team would want to get a superior opponent for their rival, but most would get an equal opponent because the other rival would also want their team to face a challenge. A team which had deals fall through and delayed in picking arranging a matchup for its rival might have to settle for a slightly lower tier opponent, but this would not usually happen, and once other rivals realized this team might accept a lower tier rival they would be jumping to set a matchup that would be difficult for their rival.
There would need to be a few special rules to this system. Teams should probably not get the same rival game matchup two years in a row. Smaller lower ranked schools should probably not have to travel from florida to hawaii or something. Home field should be part of the negotiation to balance the matchup, but a team should not have its rival game set on the road 3 years in a row or 4 times in 5 years. For ratings, it would be ideal if rival games occurred throughout the season, but for scheduling it would be easiest if they were all on the last or first week. I think the last week would win. There would be a lot of overlap of top matchups, but games could be spread out Thursday - Monday and it would create the most amazing weekend in college sports with all the top teams playing tough matchups to preserve their bcs rankings. This weekend might actually get higher ratings than the BCS bowl games, because several teams would still have their eyes on the championship at this time.
Conference standing rules would need to be altered somewhat to include the rival games and rival games would need to be excluded from strength of schedule for the rival, so that for instance USC does not find an easy matchup like Hawaii for Cal, so that when USC beats Cal it looks better on paper. Rather, the effect of the rival game on Cal's ranking would specifically be excluded from USC's strength of schedule only, so if Cal loses then USC would get credit for beating a 10-2 Cal while UCLA would not have it excluded and would get credit for beating a 10-3 Cal. So USC would have even more incentive to get the toughest matchup for their rival. If USC picked a weak opponent and Cal won their rival game, then USC would get credit for beating a 10-2 Cal while UCLA would get credit for beating an 11-2 Cal. So, again, finding the best matchup for your rival would really matter.
This plan would be good because:
It would help equalize the path to a championship for teams in different conferences. Oklahoma and Texas would play somebody other than eachother. USC would have a tougher out of conference game than playing Notre Dame or Arkansas.
It would create balanced matchups between teams from different parts of the country that would get very high tv ratings. These matchups would be set like 8 months in advance, not 5 years, so the balance would be current. The NCAA could make more money without playing more games, just by setting up this fair and equal system to generate balanced matchups.
It would create an offseason buzz which is really important for overall media coverage and popularity. Fans would follow who their team would be matched up against, and who they could match their rival against. If a team picked a poor matchup for their rival, they might lose their chance at the conference title or big bowl game because of their rivals easy victory, so the next year their fans would pay more attention and demand their representatives find a better matchup for their rival. Fans would argue who the best matchups were and which teams in other divisions were overrated or underrated as opponents for the upcoming season.
It would give fans a special interest in watching games of other teams. If your team somehow got UT as the rival matchup for your rival, you might want to watch that game more, to see if UT can beat your rival and cheer on your team for getting that matchup if they do.
So, I really want a playoff, but with or without a playoff I think this system would be really exciting and improve the game competitively and financially.
At the end of each bowl season, all division I-A college football teams are paired with the most similarly ranked team in their conference as a 'rival pair'. If there are an odd number of teams in the conference, the lowest ranked has no rival.
For example, some rival pairs might be LSU and Florida, USC and Cal, Ohio State and Michigan.
During the offseason, each team may schedule 1 game on behalf of their rival by negotiating with the rival of the team outside their conference they would like them to play. For example, in the above scenario, Cal could approach Florida to discuss scheduling an LSU vs. USC matchup. This would benefit both Cal and Florida by increasing their chances of winning their conference, rising in the rankings, and appearing in a bowl game because their rival would have a good chance of being beat.
USC could also approach LSU and propose that Cal play Florida, but LSU would likely refuse because Cal would not have a reasonable chance of beating Florida. Instead, LSU might approach Michigan or Ohio State to attempt to match Florida against the other. USC might need to approach the rival of a team like Boise State, Auburn, Georgia, etc to find a team attractive to both parties, because the game could easily go either way.
What this would create is a market for balanced matchups. Every team would play 1 extra out-of-conference closely matched and highly competitive game each year. Great teams in weak divisions would no longer have such an advantage because they would have 1 game a year against an equally great team in another division.
Every team would want to get a superior opponent for their rival, but most would get an equal opponent because the other rival would also want their team to face a challenge. A team which had deals fall through and delayed in picking arranging a matchup for its rival might have to settle for a slightly lower tier opponent, but this would not usually happen, and once other rivals realized this team might accept a lower tier rival they would be jumping to set a matchup that would be difficult for their rival.
There would need to be a few special rules to this system. Teams should probably not get the same rival game matchup two years in a row. Smaller lower ranked schools should probably not have to travel from florida to hawaii or something. Home field should be part of the negotiation to balance the matchup, but a team should not have its rival game set on the road 3 years in a row or 4 times in 5 years. For ratings, it would be ideal if rival games occurred throughout the season, but for scheduling it would be easiest if they were all on the last or first week. I think the last week would win. There would be a lot of overlap of top matchups, but games could be spread out Thursday - Monday and it would create the most amazing weekend in college sports with all the top teams playing tough matchups to preserve their bcs rankings. This weekend might actually get higher ratings than the BCS bowl games, because several teams would still have their eyes on the championship at this time.
Conference standing rules would need to be altered somewhat to include the rival games and rival games would need to be excluded from strength of schedule for the rival, so that for instance USC does not find an easy matchup like Hawaii for Cal, so that when USC beats Cal it looks better on paper. Rather, the effect of the rival game on Cal's ranking would specifically be excluded from USC's strength of schedule only, so if Cal loses then USC would get credit for beating a 10-2 Cal while UCLA would not have it excluded and would get credit for beating a 10-3 Cal. So USC would have even more incentive to get the toughest matchup for their rival. If USC picked a weak opponent and Cal won their rival game, then USC would get credit for beating a 10-2 Cal while UCLA would get credit for beating an 11-2 Cal. So, again, finding the best matchup for your rival would really matter.
This plan would be good because:
It would help equalize the path to a championship for teams in different conferences. Oklahoma and Texas would play somebody other than eachother. USC would have a tougher out of conference game than playing Notre Dame or Arkansas.
It would create balanced matchups between teams from different parts of the country that would get very high tv ratings. These matchups would be set like 8 months in advance, not 5 years, so the balance would be current. The NCAA could make more money without playing more games, just by setting up this fair and equal system to generate balanced matchups.
It would create an offseason buzz which is really important for overall media coverage and popularity. Fans would follow who their team would be matched up against, and who they could match their rival against. If a team picked a poor matchup for their rival, they might lose their chance at the conference title or big bowl game because of their rivals easy victory, so the next year their fans would pay more attention and demand their representatives find a better matchup for their rival. Fans would argue who the best matchups were and which teams in other divisions were overrated or underrated as opponents for the upcoming season.
It would give fans a special interest in watching games of other teams. If your team somehow got UT as the rival matchup for your rival, you might want to watch that game more, to see if UT can beat your rival and cheer on your team for getting that matchup if they do.
So, I really want a playoff, but with or without a playoff I think this system would be really exciting and improve the game competitively and financially.
Last edited: