Was just checking the board before I left to see if there was anything anyone wanted me to comment on (mstraublog@hotmail.com is the best way to get me btw), and I saw Big Blue's suggestion, and Blue, this is a historic moment:
WE AGREE!
I suggested this last year in a blog when Bryant got in. Two six-team divisions and a 16-game league schedule. You play the division teams twice and the other division once, and you alternate home and road each year with the other division.
Here are my divisions:
North:
CCSU, QU, SHU, Bryant, LIU, SFNY
South:
Monmouth, FDU, MSM, SFPA, RMU, Wagner.
This setup keeps traditional rivalries (The CT schools, Mon-FDU, the PA schools, the Battle of Brooklyn), creates a balanced schedule (teams you're chasing play the same skeds as you do) and makes the playoffs easier to follow (not as many crazy tiebreakers).
Top four in each division make the tournament, and you could do the bracket one of two ways. The old hockey way, where you go 1-4 and 2-3 in the division first, then have the division champs play in the final, or the crossover format: N1 plays S4 and so on. Either way the final is seeded so the division champs play.
Now for those who will yell about competitive balance issues, think about this: 1) Trends change, RMU and the Mount won't always be the two best teams. 2) Even this year, the Mount would have to get through RMU and SHU, just in reverse order under my plan.
In sports things that make sense don't usually get implemented, so don't hold your breath, but I love it.
You have good divisions, but now check out this math:
ReplyDelete-Top 8 out of 11 teams (73%)
-Top 4 out of 6 teams (67%)
This setup simply make it MORE DIFFICULT to make the NEC playoffs!
I have faith in Howie and CCSU, I just don't see why SFNY and some others would agree to this.
I can't see the NEC staying with an 8-team field for the tourney.
The MAAC has a 10-team field with the top 2 seeds getting byes (2 first round games).
The MAC has a 10-team field with the top 2 seeds getting byes to the semi-finals.
No way a 12-team conference is going to have an 8 team tourney.
Matt, I think you and I are on the same track with the 16 game schedules and the divisional NEC concept. However, I do believe that the NEC has to approach this with a lot of research and thought. Geographically and travel wise your North / South division layout makes a lot of sense, but I don’t believe CCSU fans would like it very much. Many fans feel we don’t have solid rivals in the NEC (I’ve also heard Coach Dickemman and other people affiliated with CCSU hedge on the use of the word “rival”) but MU, MSMU, RMU, Wagner, and FDU are five of CCSU’s strongest affiliations / rivals in the NEC with all playing football except MSMU. QU and SHU may be in-state, but it hasn’t’ reached the rivalry level yet. I wouldn’t be happy about being with newbie Bryant , inconsistent LIU, and “going nowhere” SFNY in a conference division either. The South Division would be far superior to the North Division and as an alumnus I wouldn’t want to see CCSU get short changed.
ReplyDeleteI would rather propose a floating division system or leave it as making it a “tier scheduling system “based on average rolling RPI over the past five years. Take the top six teams and put them in one division, the bottom six in the other. You would play two games in your division and one out of it, just like the fixed North / South concept. The “teer” system would be the same concept. The teams in the “top six rolling five year RPI” play each other twice in a season and they play the bottom six once. Vis-versa for the bottom teams, two games against he bottom six teams and one against the top six. I favor the “teer system” because at NEC tourney time you have a 1-12 conference and the top eight teams make it. In the divisional senario you may not get the top eight teams when you take the top four from each division. The “teer” system would prevent an elite division from forming and it gives higher average RPI programs a chance to improve their RPI by playing the higher RPI teams in the NEC and by having more OOC games available for quality scheduling. For lower teer teams they wouldn’t’ get bashed on and demoralized by the dominant teams in the NEC and they can use the expanded OOC schedule to pick up games that help them improve. Teams would move up and down the schedule matrix on a yearly basis based on their rolling five year RPI, hence a program can be rewarded for it’s hard work. Up and coming lower teer teams could progress and improve and crack the top six if they worked hard enough. It provides and incentive for all the programs big and small to excel and it allows them to put together competitive schedules that meet their current program needs and school profile.
Just some thoughts on the topic.
BB