|
Post by dorothymantooth on Oct 5, 2015 9:09:18 GMT -5
I agree, the actual teams make this the best conference, especially this year. However, the scheduling just blows. I miss the Big XII for the complete round-robin format and Wednesday-Saturday scheduling. The fact that some teams only have to play others once per season in the B1G is bogus IMO. I really wish the BIG had complete round-robin. Or, even the old 11-team format was sort of close. I think it's just impossible with 14 teams, so we get badly unbalanced scheduling. Thank football, of course. The conference didn't expand for the benefit of VB . There's been plenty of threads discussing having divisions and then a playoff. Since the round robin within the division is "pure" and only division matches count to make the playoff (in most people's scenarios), I guess that's fairer (though there would be a lot of griping about the relative strength of the divisions). I half-seriously propose at this point, just go to 16 teams and have a single round robin - 15 matches, play every other team once. This is far less attractive than a double round robin, and, clearly, people will complain that it's not fair because "this team has to play that team on the road, while this other team gets to play that team at home," but that's a sort of "unfairness" that plenty of other sports have had forever and I really have no problems with it. Granted, this probably isn't happening, nor is any other scenario. So, 20 game unbalanced schedule it is. As to your original post, who plays a role in scheduling? Is the schedule set from on-high at the B1G office and everyone just has to deal with it? Don't the ADs have some input? I'd think that some ADs want (or simply agree to) the quick turnaround (matches on back to back days) to save on travel costs. coaches have a lot of input on format, league makes schedule.
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Oct 5, 2015 9:11:16 GMT -5
I really wish the BIG had complete round-robin. Or, even the old 11-team format was sort of close. I think it's just impossible with 14 teams, so we get badly unbalanced scheduling. Thank football, of course. The conference didn't expand for the benefit of VB . There's been plenty of threads discussing having divisions and then a playoff. Since the round robin within the division is "pure" and only division matches count to make the playoff (in most people's scenarios), I guess that's fairer (though there would be a lot of griping about the relative strength of the divisions). I half-seriously propose at this point, just go to 16 teams and have a single round robin - 15 matches, play every other team once. This is far less attractive than a double round robin, and, clearly, people will complain that it's not fair because "this team has to play that team on the road, while this other team gets to play that team at home," but that's a sort of "unfairness" that plenty of other sports have had forever and I really have no problems with it. Granted, this probably isn't happening, nor is any other scenario. So, 20 game unbalanced schedule it is. As to your original post, who plays a role in scheduling? Is the schedule set from on-high at the B1G office and everyone just has to deal with it? Don't the ADs have some input? I'd think that some ADs want (or simply agree to) the quick turnaround (matches on back to back days) to save on travel costs. coaches have a lot of input on format, league makes schedule. And TV has the final say, both in who plays Wednesdays, and in who plays when on the weekends, as the latter is dependent on football, and the timing of those games is based on TV.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Oct 5, 2015 9:16:16 GMT -5
coaches have a lot of input on format, league makes schedule. And TV has the final say, both in who plays Wednesdays, and in who plays when on the weekends, as the latter is dependent on football, and the timing of those games is based on TV. TV doesnt have final say, it has say, but doesn't create any real unbalance or unfairness. Also, the upside to being on tv is something coaches can live with even when it makes their schedule less than perfect. The Wednesday/Saturday thing is something some coaches wanted to see across the board.
|
|
|
Post by #skoskers on Oct 5, 2015 9:35:10 GMT -5
I really wish the BIG had complete round-robin. Or, even the old 11-team format was sort of close. I think it's just impossible with 14 teams, so we get badly unbalanced scheduling. Thank football, of course. The conference didn't expand for the benefit of VB . There's been plenty of threads discussing having divisions and then a playoff. Since the round robin within the division is "pure" and only division matches count to make the playoff (in most people's scenarios), I guess that's fairer (though there would be a lot of griping about the relative strength of the divisions). I half-seriously propose at this point, just go to 16 teams and have a single round robin - 15 matches, play every other team once. This is far less attractive than a double round robin, and, clearly, people will complain that it's not fair because "this team has to play that team on the road, while this other team gets to play that team at home," but that's a sort of "unfairness" that plenty of other sports have had forever and I really have no problems with it. Granted, this probably isn't happening, nor is any other scenario. So, 20 game unbalanced schedule it is. As to your original post, who plays a role in scheduling? Is the schedule set from on-high at the B1G office and everyone just has to deal with it? Don't the ADs have some input? I'd think that some ADs want (or simply agree to) the quick turnaround (matches on back to back days) to save on travel costs. coaches have a lot of input on format, league makes schedule. The league must really favor Wisconsin then. Can the Badgers get any more breaks if they tried? So few back-to-back matches, and they only have to play Nebraska, PSU and Michigan State once (again). Last season the Badgers had ZERO back-to-back matches when they won the conference title, so add another asterisk to their achievement.
|
|
|
Post by Semp12 on Oct 5, 2015 9:36:54 GMT -5
We are dealing with this on a much smaller scale (DII in a pretty condensed region). Our conference went from a random weeknight + Friday/Saturday back to backs to a schedule which alternates between W,S and T,TH,S scheduling. The theory behind having a day to prepare/rest for everyone is true, but overall it seems much more stressful with all of the extra weeknight matches on the students. Last season we understood that the Friday/Saturday was going to be a grind and we had to deal with it, so we were in that mental state to deal with it. Everyone in the conference had to deal with it across the board. A few coaches felt that the match-ups of who you had back to back could be too unfair (or the very few advantages/disadvantages where you were home/away two days in a row not fair).
The unbalanced schedule is a bigger issue in my opinion vs. the actual scheduled dates. With the game being so mental, who wouldn't want to play another team the next day after beating a top-25 team. That could go the other way when don't show up and get blown out Friday night.
|
|
|
Post by #skoskers on Oct 5, 2015 20:13:45 GMT -5
Last season we understood that the Friday/Saturday was going to be a grind and we had to deal with it, so we were in that mental state to deal with it. Everyone in the conference had to deal with it across the board. False. Not every team had back-to-backs last season; look up last year's schedules to see an even greater imbalance of who got assigned these consecutive matches. A few coaches felt that the match-ups of who you had back to back could be too unfair (or the very few advantages/disadvantages where you were home/away two days in a row not fair). The unbalanced schedule is a bigger issue in my opinion vs. the actual scheduled dates. With the game being so mental, who wouldn't want to play another team the next day after beating a top-25 team. That could go the other way when don't show up and get blown out Friday night. (Non-professional) teams just shouldn't have to play in such a short turnaround time if they have to travel >200 miles or >3 hours between both sites. The burden of travel is a concern for academics but also for the athletes' bodies and games if they can't get proper rest/rehab.
|
|