One sunny day in late June, 2015, an intrepid and probably bored group of coaches decided to perform a long term experiment. Who could build the best program over 8 seasons? 

So these coaches filled the SUNYAC conference, and the challenge was afoot. 

Rules will be hammered out here shortly. 

So stuff is talked about on our CC, and so this might not make sense...sorry...

reserved

reserved

Looks good, some coaches I've wanted to be in the same conf as for awhile.

Eventually a SUNY-USA South battle will need to happen, I expect to see clashes in the NT soon, but a full on non-conf 10 games for each team, fight to the death for the ultimate glory or continued glory.

Posted by the0nlyis on 6/26/2015 1:39:00 AM (view original):
Looks good, some coaches I've wanted to be in the same conf as for awhile.

Eventually a SUNY-USA South battle will need to happen, I expect to see clashes in the NT soon, but a full on non-conf 10 games for each team, fight to the death for the ultimate glory or continued glory.

that's certainly one way to sort out the Non conference scheduling debate...I could break out my out WOPR from the MUSDUC days and see how it worked on D3 teams...

You need some sort of system for the non-conference games. Cause it's not the same going 10-0 against bad teams or going 10-0 against top competition.

Other than that, a win is a point.

NT bid = 2 pts. A win - 3 pts.

Maybe three points is not enough.

I like 2 for getting in the NT and 3 for each win in the NT.

I would prefer: NC games don't count - this allows teams to schedule as they choose (after the 120-0 is complete) without any bonus or penalty to deal with and also puts more emphasis on winning conference games; NT bid = 2pts and each NT win = 2 pt with an additional 2 pt bonus for winning the NT Championship which rewards success in the NT but still keeps conference play at a high level of importance. Another thing to consider would be making Conference games against the opposite division worth 1.5 pts. This would offset any unfair advantage if say 4 or 5 of the perennial top teams of the Conference all ended up in the same division. The teams in that division would have a much more difficult time winning games compared to a top team in a division with the bottom 4 or 5 teams in the Conference. Would also give 1pt for earning a CT bye.   

Ok, we all agree that during the 120-0 period, we are trying to go 120-0, so lets have those games count, because the coach that ***** up deserves to get punished for it   

Then, ,if/when we agree to end the 120-0 experiment, we will re-visit counting NC games. If the majority say no, we won't, if they say do, we will...

Reg season conference games, CT games, PIT games all count as one win. 

NT awards: making the NT field is one bonus win. 

Can we agree on these principles so far, even if its not exactly what has been proposed (there are some conflicts of course)

I think we need more discussion on the value of NT wins before that can be finalized, and those of us who want to put our money where our mouth is need to figure out how that works and how much we are in for. 

Posted by AffVid2 on 7/2/2015 11:42:00 AM (view original):
I would prefer: NC games don't count - this allows teams to schedule as they choose (after the 120-0 is complete) without any bonus or penalty to deal with and also puts more emphasis on winning conference games; NT bid = 2pts and each NT win = 2 pt with an additional 2 pt bonus for winning the NT Championship which rewards success in the NT but still keeps conference play at a high level of importance. Another thing to consider would be making Conference games against the opposite division worth 1.5 pts. This would offset any unfair advantage if say 4 or 5 of the perennial top teams of the Conference all ended up in the same division. The teams in that division would have a much more difficult time winning games compared to a top team in a division with the bottom 4 or 5 teams in the Conference. Would also give 1pt for earning a CT bye.   

There are some very good points in here that we need to consider no matter how the voting goes.

- Those who get a CT bye should not be punished by having one less opportunity for a win.  So, I like the idea of maybe giving them one extra point.

- Interesting idea to level the possible divisional inequities. I'd be fine with awarding 1.5 points for wins against the opposite division. 

- I actually really like the idea of awarding points for NC wins as long as we are doing the 120-0 thing.  That way it strongly encourages everyone to be smart about scheduling and work towards the common goal of an undefeated non-conference.   

Posted by dacj501 on 7/2/2015 7:02:00 PM (view original):
Ok, we all agree that during the 120-0 period, we are trying to go 120-0, so lets have those games count, because the coach that ***** up deserves to get punished for it   

Then, ,if/when we agree to end the 120-0 experiment, we will re-visit counting NC games. If the majority say no, we won't, if they say do, we will...

Reg season conference games, CT games, PIT games all count as one win. 

NT awards: making the NT field is one bonus win. 

Can we agree on these principles so far, even if its not exactly what has been proposed (there are some conflicts of course)

I think we need more discussion on the value of NT wins before that can be finalized, and those of us who want to put our money where our mouth is need to figure out how that works and how much we are in for. 

Haha I agree with that first part completely.  Even if someone F's up and loses a game in non-con, it'd only be one less win than the majority.  So not a huge penalty, but still encourages everyone to try even harder for 10-0.

See my post above for thoughts on the rest of what you said. 

Also, should we award the CT winner with an extra point?  Might place more emphasis on a tourney that no one really cares much about unless you need a win to make the NT.