Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

has the MVFC finalized/released any info as far as how they'll do the conference scheduling once USD joins as a 10th team?

I read somewhere that they would stick with an 8-game conference slate, with rotation as far as which team wasn't played each year. But it was also mentioned that "rivalries would be protected".

So I'm just curious if they had figured out any of the specifics yet.

Supposedly SIU and Indiana State have it set in place that they will only travel once to the Dakota's every year. Other than that I'm not sure.

FargoBison wrote:Supposedly SIU and Indiana State have it set in place that they will only travel once to the Dakota's every year. Other than that I'm not sure.

those arrangements lead me to think that perhaps the league will set up two "divisions" of sorts, where a team plays all 4 of it's division-mates every year, and then 4 of the 5 out of the other division.

of course, USD, SDSU, and NDSU would all be in the western division, since some of the eastern schools evidently have caveats regarding them, with probably UNI and one other school rounding out the division (MSU or WIU perhaps?).
With the eastern division consisting of SIU, INS, YSU, ILS, and WIU/MSU.

Though I still don't think the math works out on that as far as certain eastern teams only making one trip to the dakotas. And the notion of there being years where UNI and SIU don't play each other don't seem quite right. But I suppose it wouldn't be the end of the world.

Whatever they decide, it is going to be dumb as hell, because everyone wont be playing everyone.

DJH wrote:Whatever they decide, it is going to be dumb as hell, because everyone wont be playing everyone.

so you're saying that there shouldn't be any football conferences with more than 9 members?

YSU WILL NOT be travelling to the Dakota's twice a year. That has been confirmed by our A.D. when the move to add USD was made. Not sure where you heard SIU or INSU. I am not doubting that though, INSU makes sense like YSU due to the long travel distances.

of course, once YSU flees to the CAA or back to the OVC or to the MAC, this scheduling point will be moot.

guinzone wrote:YSU WILL NOT be travelling to the Dakota's twice a year. That has been confirmed by our A.D. when the move to add USD was made. Not sure where you heard SIU or INSU. I am not doubting that though, INSU makes sense like YSU due to the long travel distances.

According to Prettyman, ISU agreed to vote for USD membership in the conference on the condition that ISU will only make one trip to any of the three Dakota schools per year. This provision will also be in place for Southern Illinois, which expressed similar concerns

http://tribstar.com/collegesports/x1041 ... -join-MVFC" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What is the whole point of adding USD to this conference? I do not see a SINGLE benefit from this, unless YSU ends up leaving.

And how did we let their admittance pass with the ridiculous stipulation that SIU, YSU, and ISU only have to make one trip up to the Dakotas? That's just stupid.

We are going to have some horribly unbalanced schedules.

DJH wrote:What is the whole point of adding USD to this conference? I do not see a SINGLE benefit from this, unless YSU ends up leaving.

And how did we let their admittance pass with the ridiculous stipulation that SIU, YSU, and ISU only have to make one trip up to the Dakotas? That's just stupid.

We are going to have some horribly unbalanced schedules.

USD had to be added to protect the Summit League and the MVFC for the long term.

The Big Ten did this for several years. The conference championship isn't the main goal, it's nice on the resume, but the National Championship is what most teams should strive for.

Gil Dobie wrote:The Big Ten did this for several years. The conference championship isn't the main goal, it's nice on the resume, but the National Championship is what most teams should strive for.

If you go into to playoff as the conference champ you'll probably have an easier path to the NC.

DJH wrote:What is the whole point of adding USD to this conference? I do not see a SINGLE benefit from this, unless YSU ends up leaving.

And how did we let their admittance pass with the ridiculous stipulation that SIU, YSU, and ISU only have to make one trip up to the Dakotas? That's just stupid.

We are going to have some horribly unbalanced schedules.

Or NDSU decides to go Big 10.

houndawg wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:The Big Ten did this for several years. The conference championship isn't the main goal, it's nice on the resume, but the National Championship is what most teams should strive for.

If you go into to playoff as the conference champ you'll probably have an easier path to the NC.

Good teams will play anybody, anywhere. You have to beat the best in the playoffs to win the Championship.

Gil Dobie wrote:

houndawg wrote:
If you go into to playoff as the conference champ you'll probably have an easier path to the NC.

Good teams will play anybody, anywhere. You have to beat the best in the playoffs to win the Championship.

And it's easier to do at home, as a seed.

houndawg wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
Good teams will play anybody, anywhere. You have to beat the best in the playoffs to win the Championship.

And it's easier to do at home, as a seed.

Which MVFC Champ had a seed last year? There is more to it than winning the conference, you need to be a great team also.

Gil Dobie wrote:

houndawg wrote:
And it's easier to do at home, as a seed.

Which MVFC Champ had a seed last year? There is more to it than winning the conference, you need to be a great team also.

Yes, that's true. To win the NC you have to be a great team, like the ones that get seeded in the playoffs. Like the reigning NC.

Gil Dobie wrote:The Big Ten did this for several years. The conference championship isn't the main goal, it's nice on the resume, but the National Championship is what most teams should strive for.

Yeah, the B10 did it for a long time. And it was dumb as hell for a long time too.

The conference championship DOES matter, not only because of the achievement itself, but because of what it does for your playoff standing and seeding. To argue otherwise is just silly.

With having an unbalanced schedule to begin with, along with the ridiculous stipulations about certain teams not having to travel to certain places, these schedules are going to suck.

DJH wrote:With having an unbalanced schedule to begin with, along with the ridiculous stipulations about certain teams not having to travel to certain places, these schedules are going to suck.

the stipulations don't prevent a team from having to travel to any certain place. SIU and InSU will still have road games at all of the Dakota schools over the course of 3-4 years. But they just won't travel to more than one in any particular year.

DJH wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:The Big Ten did this for several years. The conference championship isn't the main goal, it's nice on the resume, but the National Championship is what most teams should strive for.

Yeah, the B10 did it for a long time. And it was dumb as hell for a long time too.

The conference championship DOES matter, not only because of the achievement itself, but because of what it does for your playoff standing and seeding. To argue otherwise is just silly.

With having an unbalanced schedule to begin with, along with the ridiculous stipulations about certain teams not having to travel to certain places, these schedules are going to suck.

The conference title does matter, but it's not as important as the National Championship. To argue otherwise is silly.

Gil Dobie wrote:

DJH wrote:
Yeah, the B10 did it for a long time. And it was dumb as hell for a long time too.

The conference championship DOES matter, not only because of the achievement itself, but because of what it does for your playoff standing and seeding. To argue otherwise is just silly.

With having an unbalanced schedule to begin with, along with the ridiculous stipulations about certain teams not having to travel to certain places, these schedules are going to suck.

The conference title does matter, but it's not as important as the National Championship. To argue otherwise is silly.

Is anybody making that argument?

JayJ79 wrote:

DJH wrote:With having an unbalanced schedule to begin with, along with the ridiculous stipulations about certain teams not having to travel to certain places, these schedules are going to suck.

the stipulations don't prevent a team from having to travel to any certain place. SIU and InSU will still have road games at all of the Dakota schools over the course of 3-4 years. But they just won't travel to more than one in any particular year.

Yeah, I realize that. That is not the issue.

DJH wrote:

JayJ79 wrote:
the stipulations don't prevent a team from having to travel to any certain place. SIU and InSU will still have road games at all of the Dakota schools over the course of 3-4 years. But they just won't travel to more than one in any particular year.

Yeah, I realize that. That is not the issue.

there is enough parity in the league that I'm not overly worried about the "unbalanced schedules".
my only concern is how they will address the issue of tiebreakers for the AQ.

Let's say, hypothetically, that Indiana State and USD both run the table in their conference games (hey, if I'm going hypothetical, I might as well make it super hypothetical. ) but they aren't scheduled to play each other due to the rotation.

I'm quite sure that they would both be named "co-champions" (as the league has always done with identical conference records). But the AQ would depend on whatever tiebreakers they had put in place. First tiebreaker would be head-to-head competition, I'm sure. But that wouldn't apply in this scenario.

Second, I'm guessing, could either be some sort of conference "power ranking" (x amount of points for beating the 1st place team, a lesser number for beating the 2nd place team, etc.; possibly taking into account road vs. home games), or they could go with GPI or some other sort of ranking, which takes into account the teams non-conference scheduling as well. Or they could wuss out and go with coin-toss or some other lame notion.

EWU and Montana State were Co-Champs. Both had home playoff games in the opening round. I dont know if one was at-large or not?

Im not sure there have been any stipulations on travel. What has been suggested would work with 5 teams in a division.

There could be a tally of travel miles for each school each year and payouts from the league could be made to balance costs. The payouts would of course be based on a pay-in by all schools as a percentage of gate or some other formula?

JBB wrote:EWU and Montana State were Co-Champs. Both had home playoff games in the opening round. I dont know if one was at-large or not?

Im not sure there have been any stipulations on travel. What has been suggested would work with 5 teams in a division.

There could be a tally of travel miles for each school each year and payouts from the league could be made to balance costs. The payouts would of course be based on a pay-in by all schools as a percentage of gate or some other formula?

MSU got the automatic bid, while EWU got an at-large.
Neither team had a home playoff game in the OPENING round, because both teams had gotten a bye in the first round.

I don't know of any athletic conferences that have such a communist policy in place as far as ticket proceeds and travel costs.