I know all the SPS Liberals** are big into fivethirtyeight, so they've probably already read this article. For the rest of us, here it is: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/make-college-football-great-again/
Essentially, teams in a conference like the SEC (Big Ten is used as an example in the article) will play a nine game conference schedule (non-conference and bye weeks would be scattered in the season somehow). Five of the games will be predetermined each year, some based on traditional rivalries, and others based on random draws or cycled over the years. The first four games each year are played against predetermined opponents and then the teams are paired up based on record where you play the team not already on your schedule that has the closest record to you. If your schedule was front-loaded with cupcakes, you'll quickly be beaten back into submission against actually good teams. If you had a tough break to start the season, you'll get a chance to beat up on a lesser team to climb back up. This repeats every week there is not a predetermined matchup, so by the end of the season you'll have a situation where the three or four best teams in the conference will have all played each other. There is no conference championship game, but you could declare a conference champion based on record and tie-breaks. You would also have one or more games at the end of the season that would be de facto championship games.
I know there's been talk about getting rid of the championship games because they're either a big mismatch (see almost every SECCG since 2009) or irrelevant (ahem, Penn State this year) to the national championship picture. You would also avoid situations where a team might make it to the championship because of a weaker cross-division schedule.
The biggest disadvantage of this type of scheduling is logistics. While you would know your home game dates in advance, going to away games would be nearly impossible to schedule, not to mention teams would have to make travel plans on a week-by-week basis and lining up charter planes a week out would be pricey.
Essentially, teams in a conference like the SEC (Big Ten is used as an example in the article) will play a nine game conference schedule (non-conference and bye weeks would be scattered in the season somehow). Five of the games will be predetermined each year, some based on traditional rivalries, and others based on random draws or cycled over the years. The first four games each year are played against predetermined opponents and then the teams are paired up based on record where you play the team not already on your schedule that has the closest record to you. If your schedule was front-loaded with cupcakes, you'll quickly be beaten back into submission against actually good teams. If you had a tough break to start the season, you'll get a chance to beat up on a lesser team to climb back up. This repeats every week there is not a predetermined matchup, so by the end of the season you'll have a situation where the three or four best teams in the conference will have all played each other. There is no conference championship game, but you could declare a conference champion based on record and tie-breaks. You would also have one or more games at the end of the season that would be de facto championship games.
I know there's been talk about getting rid of the championship games because they're either a big mismatch (see almost every SECCG since 2009) or irrelevant (ahem, Penn State this year) to the national championship picture. You would also avoid situations where a team might make it to the championship because of a weaker cross-division schedule.
The biggest disadvantage of this type of scheduling is logistics. While you would know your home game dates in advance, going to away games would be nearly impossible to schedule, not to mention teams would have to make travel plans on a week-by-week basis and lining up charter planes a week out would be pricey.
