NCAA 2006 DSP League...?

Badgun · Post by **Badgun** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 1:09 am

Toper wrote:Just updated the site with all the latest coaching moves.

ATXJ: Probably need to set a cutoff date for league applicants so that we can finalize a roster/schedule.

Badgun: Read somewhere that you weren't feeling the game...let me know if you're still in or not...thanks.

ALL: Reminder that if your XBL Tag is different from your forum name, please post it on the comments section on the blogsite.

Toper

I'm actually warming to the game a bit. My passing is still atrocious, but I'm finding a few plays here and there that for some odd reason my guys will hold onto the ball. Still I will be HEAVY on the run. I'm still in.

Toper · Post by **Toper** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 5:43 am

Badgun wrote:
Toper wrote:Just updated the site with all the latest coaching moves.

ATXJ: Probably need to set a cutoff date for league applicants so that we can finalize a roster/schedule.

Badgun: Read somewhere that you weren't feeling the game...let me know if you're still in or not...thanks.

ALL: Reminder that if your XBL Tag is different from your forum name, please post it on the comments section on the blogsite.

Toper
I'm actually warming to the game a bit. My passing is still atrocious, but I'm finding a few plays here and there that for some odd reason my guys will hold onto the ball. Still I will be HEAVY on the run. I'm still in.

Thanks for the reply...It's good to hear that you're warming to the game. I agree that sometimes the passing game can be sooo frustrating, especially against the cpu (the running game is just about perfect this year). Maybe it's because the cpu still "cheats" on defense by "knowing" your play, but I do find it easier to pass against human opponents.

Toper

Badgun · Post by **Badgun** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:48 am

Toper wrote:
Badgun wrote:
Toper wrote:Just updated the site with all the latest coaching moves.

ATXJ: Probably need to set a cutoff date for league applicants so that we can finalize a roster/schedule.

Badgun: Read somewhere that you weren't feeling the game...let me know if you're still in or not...thanks.

ALL: Reminder that if your XBL Tag is different from your forum name, please post it on the comments section on the blogsite.

Toper
I'm actually warming to the game a bit. My passing is still atrocious, but I'm finding a few plays here and there that for some odd reason my guys will hold onto the ball. Still I will be HEAVY on the run. I'm still in.
Thanks for the reply...It's good to hear that you're warming to the game. I agree that sometimes the passing game can be sooo frustrating, especially against the cpu (the running game is just about perfect this year). Maybe it's because the cpu still "cheats" on defense by "knowing" your play, but I do find it easier to pass against human opponents.

Toper

Oh yeah it definitely cheats. I couldn't figure out how they could have double coverage on every one of my guys until I took the time to really watch how the dbs react when you throw the ball. Just like last year, the dbs instantly leave their man or assignment the split second you throw the ball to a different guy. Not only do they know where you're throwing it, but the speed cheat is still there as well. I've seen dbs almost warp to a spot to make a play. I think the secret is to find that rare play or two where even if they cheat, it's amost impossible to get there in time to make a play. I've found a few plays where if the CPU is really doing its job, that they can't possibly make a play on the ball.

Zeppo · Post by **Zeppo** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:55 am

So, I'm still considering what team, what kind of team, to take. With UMD gone (that's the team I follow closest, but I can never play well with them in NCAA for some reason) and VA Tech taken, I am deciding between UVA, which is much better rated than I ever thought and has an insane QB, better-rated than young Vick, and WVA, who are in the B- zone.

I am leaning towards the B- team, since we seem to have a few of those, but not quite enough to make a full division. But I really like playing with UVA! Tough call.

I want to see how things shake out, see if anyone peels off before we get started, and if anyone else is into helping fill out a good low B/B- division to keep the Arkansas and Penn States company. I'm a little worried we have too many guys right now, there are a couple names I don't recognize from the boards, and I'd hate to see them quit. But hey, in a non-automated league, we could reschedule and fix it even if guys do disappear, I hope.

Sully · Post by **Sully** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 11:47 am

Zeppo wrote:So, I'm still considering what team, what kind of team, to take. With UMD gone (that's the team I follow closest, but I can never play well with them in NCAA for some reason) and VA Tech taken, I am deciding between UVA, which is much better rated than I ever thought and has an insane QB, better-rated than young Vick, and WVA, who are in the B- zone.

I am leaning towards the B- team, since we seem to have a few of those, but not quite enough to make a full division. But I really like playing with UVA! Tough call.

I want to see how things shake out, see if anyone peels off before we get started, and if anyone else is into helping fill out a good low B/B- division to keep the Arkansas and Penn States company. I'm a little worried we have too many guys right now, there are a couple names I don't recognize from the boards, and I'd hate to see them quit. But hey, in a non-automated league, we could reschedule and fix it even if guys do disappear, I hope.

Zep and I talked about this last night. If we go with a upper tier division, and a lower tier division, I might give up Oklahoma for a "weaker" team. I'll look over the teams today, and make my choice.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:07 pm

Sully wrote: Zep and I talked about this last night. If we go with a upper tier division, and a lower tier division, I might give up Oklahoma for a "weaker" team. I'll look over the teams today, and make my choice.

Actually, I would recommend dividing divisions by times people can play. One of the things that brings these leagues to a halt is two players who can't seem to find a mutal time to play, because of work, family, time zone, etc. Does that appeal to anyone?

TheTruth · Post by **TheTruth** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:26 pm

Brando70 wrote:
Sully wrote: Zep and I talked about this last night. If we go with a upper tier division, and a lower tier division, I might give up Oklahoma for a "weaker" team. I'll look over the teams today, and make my choice.
Actually, I would recommend dividing divisions by times people can play. One of the things that brings these leagues to a halt is two players who can't seem to find a mutal time to play, because of work, family, time zone, etc. Does that appeal to anyone?

I thought we weren't going to be following a strict schedule, but just play whoever whenever that is on our shcedule. And that we will create a DSP room a couple nights a week so everyone can pair up or whatever.

Zeppo · Post by **Zeppo** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 8:30 pm

OK gang, check this out. Here are the teams listed in order of ratings. In parentheses are (Offense, Defense), then the Overall:

• Bkrich (USC) (A+, A) A+

• Cerealkillah (Tennessee) (B, A+) A-
• AtXj (Texas) (B+, A-) A-
• Dbdynasty (Miami) (B, A) A-

• Badgun (Florida State) (B, A) B+
• Grtwhtsk (Georgia) (B+, A-) B+
• Jared (Florida) (B+, A-) B+
• Ralleymonkey (Michigan) (B+, A-) B+
• Sully (Oklahoma) (B+, A-) B+
• Danimal (Iowa) (B, A-) B+
• Wayne23 (Virginia Tech) (B, A-) B+
• XXXIV (Alabama) (B-, A-) B+
• Dookiemowf (LSU) (B+, B+) B+
• Boltman (UCLA) (B, B+) B+

• Scoopbrady (Notre Dame) (B+, B) B
• Sport73 (Boston College) (B-, B+) B
• Weaver2005 (Cal) (B-, B+) B
• Millennium (Maryland) (B-, B+) B
• ZXLT (Penn State) (B-, B+) B

• Brando (Boise State) (B-, B-) B-
• TheGamer (Illinois) (B-, B-) B-
• DDTrane (Oklahoma State) (C+, B-) B-
• TheTruth (Arkansas) (C+, C+) B-

• Pigpen (San Diego State) (C+, C+) C+

• Zeppo (free-agent) ---XBL Tag: CP Zeppo
WVA (B-, B-) B-
UVA (B, B) B+

Above, they are grouped according to their overall ratings, with my two possible choices at the bottom. Below, I have a potential divisional setups:

• Bkrich (USC) (A+, A) A+
• Cerealkillah (Tennessee) (B, A+) A-
• AtXj (Texas) (B+, A-) A-
• Dbdynasty (Miami) (B, A) A-
• Badgun (Florida State) (B, A) B+
• Grtwhtsk (Georgia) (B+, A-) B+
• Jared (Florida) (B+, A-) B+
• Ralleymonkey (Michigan) (B+, A-) B+
• Sully (Oklahoma) (B+, A-) B+

• Danimal (Iowa) (B, A-) B+
• Wayne23 (Virginia Tech) (B, A-) B+
• XXXIV (Alabama) (B-, A-) B+
• Dookiemowf (LSU) (B+, B+) B+
• Boltman (UCLA) (B, B+) B+
• Scoopbrady (Notre Dame) (B+, B) B

• Sport73 (Boston College) (B-, B+) B
• Weaver2005 (Cal) (B-, B+) B
• Millennium (Maryland) (B-, B+) B
• ZXLT (Penn State) (B-, B+) B
• Brando (Boise State) (B-, B-) B-
• TheGamer (Illinois) (B-, B-) B-
• DDTrane (Oklahoma State) (C+, B-) B-
• TheTruth (Arkansas) (C+, C+) B-
• Pigpen (San Diego State) (C+, C+) C+

• Zeppo (free-agent) ---XBL Tag: CP Zeppo
WVA (B-, B-) B-
UVA (B, B) B+

As it is now, with 25 teams, we have to do two 8-team divisions and a 9, so this above will have to be adjusted since it's two 9s and a 6 (minus me). (Or I guess we could do five 5-team divisions, hmmm. Each div. team twice, one team out of the other div's, that would be 12 games. . . . Nah, that's too "pro.") I don't know how easy it would be to fix up a schedule like that, but I think it would work out if either the short division plays 1 fewer game each, or play one team in their division twice instead of once.

Anyway, it is looking like no matter which team I pick, we will have some (B-, B+) teams split into different divisions, but that shouldn't be too big a deal (there are a lot of those B-, B+ combos, eh?).

Just food for thought. This may be nice if any are considering changing their team or anything. I still don't know the exact format AtxJ wants to run, but I thought this info would be handy.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 8:34 pm

No way in the sh*t the Canes should be rated that high...they really are not that good in the game.

Atxj · Post by **Atxj** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:22 am

Zeppo wrote:OK gang, check this out. Here are the teams listed in order of ratings. In parentheses are (Offense, Defense), then the Overall:

• Bkrich (USC) (A+, A) A+

• Cerealkillah (Tennessee) (B, A+) A-
• AtXj (Texas) (B+, A-) A-
• Dbdynasty (Miami) (B, A) A-

• Badgun (Florida State) (B, A) B+
• Grtwhtsk (Georgia) (B+, A-) B+
• Jared (Florida) (B+, A-) B+
• Ralleymonkey (Michigan) (B+, A-) B+
• Sully (Oklahoma) (B+, A-) B+
• Danimal (Iowa) (B, A-) B+
• Wayne23 (Virginia Tech) (B, A-) B+
• XXXIV (Alabama) (B-, A-) B+
• Dookiemowf (LSU) (B+, B+) B+
• Boltman (UCLA) (B, B+) B+

• Scoopbrady (Notre Dame) (B+, B) B
• Sport73 (Boston College) (B-, B+) B
• Weaver2005 (Cal) (B-, B+) B
• Millennium (Maryland) (B-, B+) B
• ZXLT (Penn State) (B-, B+) B

• Brando (Boise State) (B-, B-) B-
• TheGamer (Illinois) (B-, B-) B-
• DDTrane (Oklahoma State) (C+, B-) B-
• TheTruth (Arkansas) (C+, C+) B-

• Pigpen (San Diego State) (C+, C+) C+

• Zeppo (free-agent) ---XBL Tag: CP Zeppo
WVA (B-, B-) B-
UVA (B, B) B+
Above, they are grouped according to their overall ratings, with my two possible choices at the bottom. Below, I have a potential divisional setups:

• Bkrich (USC) (A+, A) A+
• Cerealkillah (Tennessee) (B, A+) A-
• AtXj (Texas) (B+, A-) A-
• Dbdynasty (Miami) (B, A) A-
• Badgun (Florida State) (B, A) B+
• Grtwhtsk (Georgia) (B+, A-) B+
• Jared (Florida) (B+, A-) B+
• Ralleymonkey (Michigan) (B+, A-) B+
• Sully (Oklahoma) (B+, A-) B+

• Danimal (Iowa) (B, A-) B+
• Wayne23 (Virginia Tech) (B, A-) B+
• XXXIV (Alabama) (B-, A-) B+
• Dookiemowf (LSU) (B+, B+) B+
• Boltman (UCLA) (B, B+) B+
• Scoopbrady (Notre Dame) (B+, B) B

• Sport73 (Boston College) (B-, B+) B
• Weaver2005 (Cal) (B-, B+) B
• Millennium (Maryland) (B-, B+) B
• ZXLT (Penn State) (B-, B+) B
• Brando (Boise State) (B-, B-) B-
• TheGamer (Illinois) (B-, B-) B-
• DDTrane (Oklahoma State) (C+, B-) B-
• TheTruth (Arkansas) (C+, C+) B-
• Pigpen (San Diego State) (C+, C+) C+

• Zeppo (free-agent) ---XBL Tag: CP Zeppo
WVA (B-, B-) B-
UVA (B, B) B+

As it is now, with 25 teams, we have to do two 8-team divisions and a 9, so this above will have to be adjusted since it's two 9s and a 6 (minus me). (Or I guess we could do five 5-team divisions, hmmm. Each div. team twice, one team out of the other div's, that would be 12 games. . . . Nah, that's too "pro.") I don't know how easy it would be to fix up a schedule like that, but I think it would work out if either the short division plays 1 fewer game each, or play one team in their division twice instead of once.

Anyway, it is looking like no matter which team I pick, we will have some (B-, B+) teams split into different divisions, but that shouldn't be too big a deal (there are a lot of those B-, B+ combos, eh?).

Just food for thought. This may be nice if any are considering changing their team or anything. I still don't know the exact format AtxJ wants to run, but I thought this info would be handy.

Zeppo, that sounds excellent.

I want this to be a league wide consensus(or as close to as possible) and in no way setup by one person.

We don't need to finalize anything until Monday/Tuesday so keep the suggestions coming.

Millennium · Post by **Millennium** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 8:10 am

May I suggest Zeppo pick UVA purely for the rivalry game

Looks very good so far. Obvoiusly we are going to have divisions with A teams and B teams in it, and that shouldn't be an issue with anyone.

Zeppo · Post by **Zeppo** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:06 pm

OK, here is a better list I think. I reordered them a little, and I grouped them according to what I think would be fair competitiveness within divisions:

• Bkrich (USC) (A+, A) A+
• AtXj (Texas) (B+, A-) A-
• Cerealkillah (Tennessee) (B, A+) A-
• Dbdynasty (Miami) (B, A) A-
• Badgun (Florida State) (B, A) B+
• Grtwhtsk (Georgia) (B+, A-) B+
• Jared (Florida) (B+, A-) B+
• Ralleymonkey (Michigan) (B+, A-) B+
• Sully (Oklahoma) (B+, A-) B+
• Dookiemowf (LSU) (B+, B+) B+

• Danimal (Iowa) (B, A-) B+
• Wayne23 (Virginia Tech) (B, A-) B+
• XXXIV (Alabama) (B-, A-) B+
• Boltman (UCLA) (B, B+) B+
• Scoopbrady (Notre Dame) (B+, B) B
• Sport73 (Boston College) (B-, B+) B
• Weaver2005 (Cal) (B-, B+) B
• Millennium (Maryland) (B-, B+) B
• ZXLT (Penn State) (B-, B+) B

• Brando (Boise State) (B-, B-) B-
• TheGamer (Illinois) (B-, B-) B-
• DDTrane (Oklahoma State) (C+, B-) B-
• TheTruth (Arkansas) (C+, C+) B-
• Pigpen (San Diego State) (C+, C+) C+

• Zeppo (free-agent)
WVA (B-, B-) B-
UVA (B, B) B+

This way, the numbers clearly don't work, but I think the quality of teams within divisions makes a little more sense. If i go with UVA, I would be in the middle division and either three or four out of UMD, Penn St., Cal and BC would have to go into the 3rd division; meanwhile, one, two, or three B+ teams from the upper group would have to be chosen to drop down, depending. As is, at least one of the top would have to move down, since there are now ten up there.

I don't want to put too fine a point on it here, but I want to make sure that everyone is feels that the division they end up in is fair, no matter what method we use to divide them up. I don't think it would be too much fun for pigpen or the Truth to have to play all their games against real national title contenders. On the other hand, another way to do divisions is to have each division have top teams and lesser teams, distribute them around that way, and make the out-of-division games match ups according to team quality. Another thing to think about. . .

I really, really enjoy playing with UVA; that QB is insane, and they are a lot of fun to play. However, WVA is fun to play with as well, so if it would work out better, I would enjoy taking them.

Lots of options here. Need some input, or direction from whoever wants to be in charge.

Danimal · Post by **Danimal** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:26 pm

I think it looks good Zep. I also think you should be in charge

My only thought and it was already mentioned, we I hope we can play whoever is on our schedule and we have a couple of set game nights where we create a room. The biggest PIA of last years 2K league was scheduling a weekly game.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:33 pm

Danimal wrote:I think it looks good Zep. I also think you should be in charge

My only thought and it was already mentioned, we I hope we can play whoever is on our schedule and we have a couple of set game nights where we create a room. The biggest PIA of last years 2K league was scheduling a weekly game.

That does make the most sense.

I like Zeppo's suggestion to have maybe a sprinkle of solid teams and lesser teams in each division, maybe following regional rivalries? Then having more evenly matched out of conference games. So I would see it like this:

EAST
• Dbdynasty (Miami) (B, A) A-
• Badgun (Florida State) (B, A) B+
• Grtwhtsk (Georgia) (B+, A-) B+
• Jared (Florida) (B+, A-) B+
• Wayne23 (Virginia Tech) (B, A-) B+
• Sport73 (Boston College) (B-, B+) B
• Millennium (Maryland) (B-, B+) B
• ZXLT (Penn State) (B-, B+) B
• Zeppo (as UVA or WVU)

CENTRAL
• AtXj (Texas) (B+, A-) A-
• Cerealkillah (Tennessee) (B, A+) A-
• Ralleymonkey (Michigan) (B+, A-) B+
• Dookiemowf (LSU) (B+, B+) B+
• Danimal (Iowa) (B, A-) B+
• XXXIV (Alabama) (B-, A-) B+
• Scoopbrady (Notre Dame) (B+, B) B
• TheGamer (Illinois) (B-, B-) B-

WEST
• Bkrich (USC) (A+, A) A+
• Sully (Oklahoma) (B+, A-) B+
• Boltman (UCLA) (B, B+) B+
• Weaver2005 (Cal) (B-, B+) B
• TheTruth (Arkansas) (C+, C+) B-
• DDTrane (Oklahoma State) (C+, B-) B-
• Brando (Boise State) (B-, B-) B-
• Pigpen (San Diego State) (C+, C+) C+

Teams could play traditional rivalry games out of conference, too (USC and ND, OK and TX).

Zeppo · Post by **Zeppo** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 7:05 pm

What would happen if we broke into divisions based on players' time zones? I'm serious, that could look very similar to what Brando just posted. At least it would be interesting to look out. If it worked out, it would make game nights a little easier for everyone, I think.

Toper · Post by **Toper** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 7:57 pm

What do you guys think about playing with "even" teams (if it's available online)? That could help with the re-alignment, and also put everyone on a level playing field.

Toper

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 9:10 pm

Toper wrote:What do you guys think about playing with "even" teams (if it's available online)? That could help with the re-alignment, and also put everyone on a level playing field.

Toper

That's fine with me...I've got no issues with that. Then it's more the player rather than the team.

ddtrane · Post by **ddtrane** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 9:30 pm

I have no problems with the matchups suggested. My only problem is that I travel 3 days every week and the days rotate. So whoever I play, we'll have to get together in order to set a time.

Sully · Post by **Sully** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:08 pm

I'd prefer not to play with the "even teams" feature on.

Post by **Jared** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:03 pm

I would lean against even teams, mainly because it negates different team styles based on their strengths/differences.

Badgun · Post by **Badgun** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:30 am

dbdynsty25 wrote:
Toper wrote:What do you guys think about playing with "even" teams (if it's available online)? That could help with the re-alignment, and also put everyone on a level playing field.

Toper
That's fine with me...I've got no issues with that. Then it's more the player rather than the team.

But then everyone will find out that I suck.

Millennium · Post by **Millennium** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 9:36 am

I am also against even teams, even though I only have a B rated team. I would rather know my teams playstyle then just have everyone be generic.

Also, I will be away from tonight until Tuesday. Just a heads up.

Zeppo · Post by **Zeppo** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:17 am

I don't like the idea of even teams, either.

We have two basic options with the divisional setup; one is to split them up according to overall rating, the other is to split them up with an even distribution of good and lousy teams in each division (which could work out pretty well with time zones).

Which would be best? I tend to prefer splitting them up according to overall rating, although with 3 divisions, since we will need 4 out-of-division games, maybe the other way would work out just as well, I don't know.

I think if we have Game Nights on Wednesday and Saturday, that would work out great. For Game Nights, whoever is on first would set up a lobby named "DSP" with a password of dsp or something else if we find too many randoms are sneaking in. Folks would gather in the room, and pair off according to whoever they have not yet played on their schedule. There won't be a set schedule in terms of the order of teams you play, more a checklist of teams you have to play, in any order. Game Nights should be fairly relaxed and unorganized, and we can get a lot of games in that way. As the season winds down, individual guys will have to work out specific games on a one-to-one basis. In fact, any time you want to schedule a specific game with someone would be fine; there's no rule that all games must be played on Wed. or Sat.

The short divisions will have a choice, and I think they should vote once we set the divisions: play one game fewer than the bigger division, or play one team in the division twice instead of once. I think that's the only way for the schedule to work out. With 4 out of div. games, we'll all play two teams in each of the other divisions. That would mean 12 games for the 9-team division (and everyone, if we go with the 'one team twice' deal). It could maybe work with 3 out of division games, but I'm finding it tough to figure out with 3 divisions.

So I guess I am asking, regarding the divisions, good teams/medium teams/lousy teams, or a time zone based mix, which would y'all prefer?

One more thing: should we consider playing 6 or 7 minute quarters, or is everyone happy with 5? I thought 5 would be way too short, but it hasn't been, even though I would still prefer longer quarters. But I can understand if 7 min. quarters will be too long for some gamers. Any input on this is welcome. I may put up a couple polls later, like tomorrow, about these two issues (divisional setup and game time).

My preference would be for a scorekeeper (tbd; AtxJ? Toper?) to input the results in the league module, and for the winner (at least) to post a game recap (even if it's just the score, if you are short of time) in a results thread. If everyone just reports into the module, it will be tough to keep tabs on the goings on around the league, that's why I want those reports!

Zeppo · Post by **Zeppo** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:03 pm

Well, this schedule thing is turning out to be pretty tough for me to figure out. I wish I had kept up with my old math studies, but as it is now I am trying as best I can, and I can't figure it out. I think the only way to make it easy enough to do is if we have even-sized divisions, so unless someone with a math degree (or some kind of schedule generator which might run on Windows) can figure it out, in the interest of a better league I think I will back out. That will leave you with 3 eight-team divions, which should be easy to schedule.

Good luck!

EDIT: OK, I don't really want to back out, but this is really a toughie. One way I can figure it out is to have the 9-team division teams play 3 out-of-division games instead of 4. That would make everyone play an 11 game schedule. Problem is, one team would have to play 10 games.

No question, is more difficult than I thought it would be. I think as we go, if we lose some teams or something, we may end up with some teams playing 12 games and some teams playing 10.

Atxj · Post by **Atxj** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:46 pm

Zeppo wrote:Well, this schedule thing is turning out to be pretty tough for me to figure out. I wish I had kept up with my old math studies, but as it is now I am trying as best I can, and I can't figure it out. I think the only way to make it easy enough to do is if we have even-sized divisions, so unless someone with a math degree (or some kind of schedule generator which might run on Windows) can figure it out, in the interest of a better league I think I will back out. That will leave you with 3 eight-team divions, which should be easy to schedule.

Good luck!

EDIT: OK, I don't really want to back out, but this is really a toughie. One way I can figure it out is to have the 9-team division teams play 3 out-of-division games instead of 4. That would make everyone play an 11 game schedule. Problem is, one team would have to play 10 games.

No question, is more difficult than I thought it would be. I think as we go, if we lose some teams or something, we may end up with some teams playing 12 games and some teams playing 10.

Zeppo, your not backing out. Between the two of us we will come up with a schedule.