Since the recent implementation of the 12-team College Football Playoff for college football at the FBS level, there is an inquiry by the sports media “experts” with the primary thought centered around the selection and seeding process. Moreover, the primary problem of how to select the FBS teams for seeds 6 through 12. There are multiple questions that relates to strength of schedule and scheduling. Those questions that needs to be addressed are as follows; How to determine strength of schedule? Can there be a scheduling format that assists in scheduling better games in the future season conference schedule? Can College football at the FBS level implement an NFL type schedule format? Should these Super Conferences, with 16 teams or more be split into two divisions or four divisions? However, is there already published research that could assist in addressing these questions put forth by the sports media “experts”.
The answer to all of these questions is, yes. In my self-published, copyright protected, intellectual property rights book titled; “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Soultions (Siggelow, 2013 & 2016). From page 335 to page 365, Chapter 16 Titled: Balanced Schedule: Possible or Impossible, clearly explains how college football at the FBS level can implement the NFL type scheduling format. This chapter possesses charts and diagrams which addressed both how to schedule non- conference schedules and conference scheduling. This published research would increase strength of scheduling year to year. This also indicates that with a college football individual who creates the schedule for college football, you would take all the responsibility out of the hands of the Athletic Directors and Head Coaches.
Now that college football has started the inaugural 12-team playoff. The sports media “experts” either do not like the 12 teams selected or believed that other “name brand” FBS programs, preferably from the Southeastern Conference (SEC) felt that Mississippi, South Carolina and Alabama were more deserving of being in the 12-team field. The sports media “experts” from ESPN are the primary drivers of the argument/narrative for the SEC teams. Now the current narrative they are driving is a better seasonal scheduling format that would possibly increase strength of schedule. That this SOS would assist the committee in determining who would better fit the 12 team playoff seeds versus those programs who earned a record of (12-0), (11-1) or (10-2). The narrative ESPN is driving is that your record does not indicate your SOS. Interesting, that since the SEC only received 3 teams into the inaugural CFP 12-team playoff, ESPN and the SEC fan base believe that the CFP 12-team playoff should have more than 3 SEC teams. Thats another argument.
How do we address this large conference scheduling issues that everyone is all upset about. There are multiple ways to successfully implement the NFL type schedule for large super conferences without making it hard to comprehend. However, the one variable that cannot be controlled is future success or failures of the FBS team credibility based upon last season success or failures. Within this blog post, I will demonstrate and provide multiple examples of how to schedule large conferences schedules. For all intent purpose, I will use the Southeastern Conference (SEC), since they believed that they were not represented enough in the inaugural CFP 12-team playoff.
First objective is to determine true placement or rank order of finish of each SEC program in conference play to establish the right rank order. Since there are 16 teams in the SEC, we can determine that there will be multiple teams with common records within the SEC play. Below is the rank order of the 2024 SEC conference season with final conference records:
| Team | WINS | LOSSES |
| TEXAS | 7 | 1 |
| GEORGIA | 6 | 2 |
| TENNESSEE | 6 | 2 |
| ALABAMA | 5 | 3 |
| SOUTH CAROLINA | 5 | 3 |
| LSU | 5 | 3 |
| TEXAS A&M | 5 | 3 |
| MISSISSIPPI | 5 | 3 |
| MISSOURI | 5 | 3 |
| FLORIDA | 4 | 4 |
| ARKANSAS | 3 | 5 |
| VANDERBILT | 3 | 5 |
| OKLAHOMA | 2 | 6 |
| AUBURN | 2 | 6 |
| KENTUCKY | 1 | 7 |
| MISSISSIPPI STATE | 0 | 8 |
Rank order of all teams tied with identical records, were determined by head-to-head games played against each other. Georgia beat Tennessee. Oklahoma beat Auburn. Arkansas and Vanderbilt never played this season. No need to determine placement because it would not affect movement changes in divisional/pods. This brings us to the group of (5-3) SEC teams. How were these teams rank order determined? By using the same philosophy as the other ties. However, this is what we call a cyclical triad times (3). I took all the (5-3) teams and determined the head-to-head-to-head outcomes. Alabama was (3-0) versus the group. South Carolina was (2-3). Texas A&M was (2-2). Mississippi was (1-1). Leaving Missouri at (0-3) versus the group. Thats how rank order was determined for this group of SEC teams.
Second objective is to determine which type of scheduling design and format would benefit a strength of schedule concept for the fans and selection process. There are about five (5) common ways to establish the conference scheduling design and conference divisional alignments. Division Concept 1: All 16 teams in the same conference as demonstrated in the above title. Thats where we are now and no one likes it. Division Concept 2: split all 16 teams into two (2), Eight Team (8-team) divisions. Either split by final rank order, 1 through 8 and 9-16 or split all 16 teams by rank order based upon odd number rank order one division, with even rank order one division. Then we can split by rank order by odd groups of 4 teams; top 4 teams paired with third group of 4 teams. That would indicate split even group would be the second group of 4 teams paired with bottom 4 teams.
| TEAMS | TEAMS | TEAMS | TEAMS | |||
| TEXAS | MISSOURI | TEXAS | GEORGIA | |||
| GEORGIA | FLORIDA | TENNESSEE | ALABAMA | |||
| TENNESSEE | ARKANSAS | SOUTH CAROLINA | LSU | |||
| ALABAMA | VANDERBILT | TEXAS A&M | MISSISSIPPI | |||
| SOUTH CAROLINA | OKLAHOMA | MISSOURI | FLORIDA | |||
| LSU | AUBURN | ARKANSAS | VANDERBILT | |||
| TEXAS A&M | KENTUCKY | OKLAHOMA | AUBURN | |||
| MISSISSIPPI | MISSISSIPPI ST | KENTUCKY | MISSISSIPPI ST |
| TEAMS | TEAMS | |
| TEXAS | SOUTH CAROLINA | |
| GEROGIA | LSU | |
| TENNESSEE | TEXAS A&M | |
| ALABAMA | MISSISSIPPI | |
| MISSOURI | OKLAHOMA | |
| FLORIDA | AUBURN | |
| ARKANSAS | KENTUCKY | |
| VANDERBILT | MISSISSIPPI ST |
Division Concept 3: Split all 16 teams into 4 divisions/pods with 4 teams based upon rank order; Teams 1 though 4, teams 5 through 8, teams 9 through 12 and teams 13 through16. Or we can split all 16 teams into 4 divisions/pods with 4 teams, based upon even and odd placement rank order from previous season.
| TEAMS | TEAMS | TEAMS | TEAMS |
| TEXAS | SOUTH CAROLINA | MISSOURI | OKLAHOMA |
| GEORGIA | LSU | FLORIDA | AUBURN |
| TENNEESSEE | TEXAS A&M | ARKANSAS | KENTUCKY |
| ALABAMA | MISSISSIPPI | VANDERBILT | MISSISSIPPI ST |
| TEAMS | TEAMS | TEAMS | TEAMS |
| TEXAS | GEORGIA | MISSOURI | FLORIDA |
| TENNESEE | ALABAMA | ARKANSAS | VANDERBILT |
| SOUTH CAROLINA | LSU | OKLAHOMA | AUBURN |
| TEXAS A&M | MISSISSIPPI | KENTUCKY | MISSISSIPPI ST |
As you can review there are many ways we can divide the large conference into 2-divisions and 4 divisions. Now the next objective is to determine scheduling of the conference games. In addition to number of conference games that need to be scheduled; eight (8) or nine (9) conference games.
Third objective is the scheduling of the conference games, determining how many conference games you want to schedule for the season. The common number of conference games for the SEC has been eight (8). However, they have been thinking about scheduling nine (9). The other factor that needs to be maintained, retention of all conference traditional rivalry games within the scheduling rubric. Remember the sports media “experts” desire to have strength of schedule. In the event, traditional conference rivalry games do not fall into the scheduling rubric, can these games be scheduled as a non-conference game? The answer to that question is yes. During the 2023 college football season, Army and Navy maintained their traditional rivalry game at the end of the regular season. Even though they are members of the American Athletic Conference (AAC), they did not let that interfere with their conference schedule. Using a simple format and formula which is fair, assists with strength of schedule determination and allows the scheduling rubric to monitor games without having to figure out future scheduling and process.
Within the concept scheduling explanations, I will be using Texas as the team of example to clearly explain how the scheduling of conference games would be for Texas. All teams from the SEC will also follow the same scheduling concepts. Before any of you challenge the idea and concepts, please read. Yes, it works all the way through without issues.
Concept 1 Scheduling: With the 16-teams in one division concept, you can schedule eight (8) or nine (9) conference games with ease. Formatting for an eight (8) game conference schedule with one division will be scheduled based upon final rank order standings. With all ties being broken by head-to-head games or using the cyclical triad method. These eight (8) games scheduling format requires you to play everyone team in a pod of 4. This means SEC teams that finished 1 through 4, 5 through 8, 9 though 12 and 13 through16, are scheduled against each other no matter what. That equals to (3) games. The remaining (5) conference games will be scheduled by every other rule concept. For example, Team 1 will be scheduled teams in rank order; 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13. Giving them the (5) other conference games. The chart below shows the scheduling rubric concept. By scheduling these games in this format, you take away scheduling weaker teams by rotation in past years. You are required to schedule teams based upon rank order, like they do in the NFL. Eight (8) Game Conference Schedule:
| RO | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 1 | X | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||||||
| 2 | 1 | X | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||||||
| 3 | 1 | 2 | X | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||||||
| 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | X | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||||||
| 5 | 4 | X | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||||||
| 6 | 4 | 1 | X | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 2 | X | 3 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||||||
| 8 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | X | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||||||
| 9 | 6 | 5 | 5 | X | 1 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 8 | |||||||
| 10 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 1 | X | 2 | 3 | 7 | 8 | |||||||
| 11 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 2 | X | 3 | 8 | |||||||
| 12 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 3 | X | 8 | |||||||
| 13 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | X | 1 | 2 | 3 | |||||||
| 14 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 1 | X | 2 | 3 | |||||||
| 15 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 1 | 2 | X | 3 | |||||||
| 16 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | X |
The nine (9) game conference schedule rubric was not difficult to adapt to the concept of balance, fair, strength of schedule assessments within the scheduling rubric. This still provides the opportunity to schedule competitive games and increase the chance to schedule conference rivalry games without the need to schedule them as non-conference games. Within the same 4 team pod scheduling format, teams 1 though 4, teams 5 through 8, teams 9 through 12 and teams 13 through 16 schedule each other no matter what. This will equal (3) conference games. The remaining (6) conference games will be scheduled by rank order with the next three (3) pods placement. Indicating that if you are in pod (1) and you finished first or second, then you will be scheduled the other conference games versus pods (2) through pod (4) first and second placements. This will schedule you the (6 )other conference games. Making the total of (9) conference games. Below is the chart for the nine (9) conference games scheduling rubric:
| RO | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 1 | X | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||||||
| 2 | 1 | X | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||||||
| 3 | 1 | 2 | X | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||||||
| 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | X | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||||||
| 5 | 4 | 4 | X | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||||||
| 6 | 5 | 5 | 1 | X | 2 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||||||
| 7 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 2 | X | 3 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||||||
| 8 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | X | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||||||
| 9 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | X | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||
| 10 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 1 | X | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||
| 11 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 2 | X | 3 | 8 | 9 | ||||||
| 12 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 3 | X | 8 | 9 | ||||||
| 13 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 7 | X | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||||
| 14 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 1 | X | 2 | 3 | ||||||
| 15 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | X | 3 | ||||||
| 16 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | X |
Concept 2 Scheduling: No matter which way you create/place teams within the two (2) eight (8) team divisions, 1 through 8 with 9 through 16, odd and even, or Top 4 paired with 3rd pod of 4 with 2nd pod of 4 paired with the bottom pod of 4, the scheduling of eight (8) or nine (9) conference games becomes simplistic. With the (8) game (2) division schedule, you will be scheduled to play every team within your division, plus the required (1) cross conference divisional game based upon rank order finish. This will guarantee the chance of strength of schedule. For example, Texas was first (1st) in rank order of the conference. They will be required to schedule the top team in the cross division to complete the (8) eight game schedules. With the (9) nine game conference schedules, Texas would now be required to schedule the top (2) teams using the rank order rule. This will complete the (9) game conference schedules.
| RO | 8 GAMES | CD | RO | 9 GAMES | CD | ||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1&2 | ||
| 2 | X | 2 | 2 | 2 | X | 2 | 1&2 |
| 3 | X | 3 | 3 | 3 | X | 3 | 3&4 |
| 4 | X | 4 | 4 | 4 | X | 4 | 3&4 |
| 5 | X | 5 | 5 | 5 | X | 5 | 5&6 |
| 6 | X | 6 | 6 | 6 | X | 6 | 5&6 |
| 7 | X | 7 | 7 | 7 | X | 7 | 7&8 |
| 8 | X | 8 | 8 | 8 | X | 8 | 7&8 |
Concept 3 Scheduling: With using the 4-team, 4 division/pod format; and the various ways you can list each 4-teams in the divisions or pods. It does not matter how the teams are placed in the 4-team divisions. What matters is the how the scheduling rubric works for both (8) and (9) games conferences games. Maintaining the strength of schedule ideology in which the sports “media’ keeps espousing. The determining factor is which cross divisional games would be scheduled for the proper balance. For example, in the (8) game conference scheduling format Texas would be required to schedule the (3) teams in their 4-team division/pod. Additionally, Texas would be required to schedule the top (2) teams in the next (2) 4-team divisions/pods to makes the total (7) conference games based upon the placement rule. To complete the (8th) Conference game, Texas would be required to schedule the top team in the lowest pod. If the SEC decides to schedule (9) SEC games with this 4-team division/pods format, then Texas would have a different scheduling format with two different styles. Format one, would require Texas to schedule all teams within their 4-team division/pod. In addition to scheduling the 4-team division/pod below them. This creates (7) SEC games before we add the remaining (2) SEC games scheduling the top teams in the remaining two divisions. Format two, would require Texas to schedule all the teams within their 4-team division/pod. The remaining (6) SEC games would be scheduled for Texas, by requiring them to schedule the top (2) teams from the 3 remaining divisions/pods. The charts below explain how this will be scheduled:
| RO | P1 | P1 | P1 | P1 | P2 | P2 | P2 | P2 | P3 | P3 | P3 | P3 | P4 | P4 | P4 | P4 |
| 1 | X | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||||||
| 2 | 1 | X | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||||||
| 3 | 1 | 2 | X | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||||||
| 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | X | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| RO | P1 | P1 | P1 | P1 | P2 | P2 | P2 | P2 | P3 | P3 | P3 | P3 | P4 | P4 | P4 | P4 |
| 1 | X | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||||||
| 2 | 1 | X | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||||||
| 3 | 1 | 2 | X | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||||||
| 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | X | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| RO | P1 | P1 | P1 | P1 | P2 | P2 | P2 | P2 | P3 | P3 | P3 | P3 | P4 | P4 | P4 | P4 |
| 1 | X | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||||||
| 2 | 1 | X | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||||||
| 3 | 1 | 2 | X | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||||||
| 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | X | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| RO | P1 | P1 | P1 | P1 | P2 | P2 | P2 | P2 | P3 | P3 | P3 | P3 | P4 | P4 | P4 | P4 |
| 1 | X | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||||||
| 2 | 1 | X | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||||||
| 3 | 1 | 2 | X | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||||||
| 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | X | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
The idea of not figuring out how to schedule large conference schedules that would assist in strength of schedule hinges on a few factors. One, there is no guarantee that programs will maintain record credibility, decrease in record credibility or increase in record credibility. Two, conference games that are “TRULY” traditional SEC games, (i.e. Alabama/Auburn, Mississippi/Mississippi St, Georgia/Tennessee ect). “Traditions” are games that are scheduled EVERY season, not random years (i.e. Georgia/Alabama) is not scheduled every season. With the (8) or (9) games conference schedule, there is room for scheduling traditional rivalry games within the non-conference scheduling slots. Third, this would eliminate or significantly decrease scheduling conflicts with the “rotational” scheduling format in which the conferences are using now. Fourth, this proves that the scheduling of games can be performed in the NFL type manner and overseen by one or two individuals rather than Athletics Directors and head coaches trying to schedule. Sixth, this type of NFL scheduling rubric can be used for the scheduling of non-conference games with other FBS conference. That was proven within the same chapter of the published research/literary work stated previously. Lastly, this type of scheduling concept would create more significant strength of schedule answers.
To draw a conclusion on this posting. This scheduling concept was derived from published copyright and intellectual property right protected research with ISBN#s and Library of Congress Identification. The Image to the upper right-hand corner of this blog page is the available published research at Lulu.com. This idea concept was already written in 2013 and 2016. This is my idea, no one else. For those of you who are thinking they have thought of this great idea, you are wrong. You are treading on my copyright and intellectual property rights.
If you decide to recite, use, post or verbalize any of this material, please follow APA/MLA citation standards and practices. The copyright insignia at the bottom protects my intellectual property and my own ideas.
If you have any questions about my idea, concepts or literary work; please do not ask me. You can contact me at cfbpoexpert on the X Platform and Blue-Sky Platform.
© All Rights Reserved under Copyright and Intellectual Property Rights 2024.