+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: Scheduling Czar (/thread-883415.html)
Scheduling Czar - micahandme - 09-23-2019 12:48 AM
Watching Notre Dame and Georgia was so much fun last night. And then we were ready to go to bed but UCLA/Washington State sucked us in.
And as we are enjoying these games among P5 teams, they show highlights of the great and glorious top 2 teams in the country. The teams with enough talent to supply an entire NFL division in next year's draft...and they are facing off against Charlotte and Southern Miss. Teams that may have 1 or 2 NFL players on their roster collectively. Ridiculous match-ups. Stupid games...that do nothing for the regular season or for the post-season.
It's time for college football to be PROACTIVE about their brand. Why wait for the popularity peak to head downward? Keep the trajectory upward.
1. One pre-season home game for each school. Doesn't count towards records. Teams can sell tickets and make money...but it's a glorified scrimmage.
2. One G5 team may be scheduled. Most P5 schools will pay the team to come...some may choose to do a home-away with a G5 school.
3. The rest of the non-conference games must be Power 5 opponents. If the SEC/ACC want to stay at 8 games like pansies, they can. But they have to go out and schedule three other P5 teams to complete their schedules. Sorry Alabama. You can't skate by with 9 P5 opponents and rest up your players for the other cupcakes while many Big 12/Big Ten/Pac-12 teams are playing 11 P5 foes.
4. Your 8 or 9 conference games.
Even this may not insure that scheduling is equitable. Alabama may pay lower Power 5 teams like Pitt and Oregon State to come play them (and not return an away visit to their stadiums)...and thus fulfill their "you must play P5 teams" quota. But it's still going to be better competition and more compelling viewing overall. Additionally, it would provide FAR MORE data points for the CFP and the media polls to judge conference versus conference comparisons.
Of course, an 8-team playoff which gets P5 conference champs auto-bids would also be helpful.
RE: Scheduling Czar - ColKurtz - 09-23-2019 01:24 AM
Who's going to vote for this? Conferences and schools want control of their scheduling. They have zero reason to give up that control to institute something like this, which restricts their flexibility.
RE: Scheduling Czar - Fighting Muskie - 09-23-2019 01:56 AM
I am all for enacting a pre-season game and then requiring more P5 opponents for each school. At some point this season I plan on compiling the results of all OOC games to see exactly what percent of these games, which fans had to pay to watch, were pointless blowouts against lower level competition.
There also needs to be an expanded payoffs (5-1-2) with autobids for the P5 champs to remove the incentive to schedule weak to avoid an OOC loss that takes them out of playoff contention.
RE: Scheduling Czar - Wedge - 09-23-2019 02:24 AM
(09-23-2019 01:24 AM)ColKurtz Wrote: Who's going to vote for this? Conferences and schools want control of their scheduling. They have zero reason to give up that control to institute something like this, which restricts their flexibility.
Exactly. There are no CFB coaches out there who want a czar to make their schedule a lot more difficult. Even the coaches whose jobs are secure don't want additional serious obstacles in the way of a playoff spot or a high poll ranking, and the coaches whose jobs are not secure know that every additional loss is another reason for boosters to light a fire under a nervous AD.
(09-23-2019 01:56 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: There also needs to be an expanded payoffs (5-1-2) with autobids for the P5 champs to remove the incentive to schedule weak to avoid an OOC loss that takes them out of playoff contention.
That's not enough to remove the incentive for "manageable" non-conference schedules. You'd have only two at-large bids, and they would almost certainly go to teams with the fewest losses. Just like the 4-team playoff has chosen only teams with fewer than two losses.
Why does the basketball tournament theoretically incentivize tougher schedules? Because they have 36 at-large bids!
This will never happen, but if you really wanted to incentivize more difficult schedules, then the playoff would need to be much larger than 8 teams. If we're still keeping FBS and FCS separate (that's a topic for another thread), then make the FBS tournament 24 teams, same size as the FCS tournament. If there were 14 at-large bids, then top teams would know that they can lose 3 games and still make the playoff. (In fact, if you used the final CFP committee rankings to generate a 24-team playoff for 2018, there would have been four 4-loss at-large teams in the playoff.)
RE: Scheduling Czar - DawgNBama - 09-23-2019 07:57 AM
(09-23-2019 12:48 AM)micahandme Wrote: Watching Notre Dame and Georgia was so much fun last night. And then we were ready to go to bed but UCLA/Washington State sucked us in.
And as we are enjoying these games among P5 teams, they show highlights of the great and glorious top 2 teams in the country. The teams with enough talent to supply an entire NFL division in next year's draft...and they are facing off against Charlotte and Southern Miss. Teams that may have 1 or 2 NFL players on their roster collectively. Ridiculous match-ups. Stupid games...that do nothing for the regular season or for the post-season.
It's time for college football to be PROACTIVE about their brand. Why wait for the popularity peak to head downward? Keep the trajectory upward.
1. One pre-season home game for each school. Doesn't count towards records. Teams can sell tickets and make money...but it's a glorified scrimmage.
2. One G5 team may be scheduled. Most P5 schools will pay the team to come...some may choose to do a home-away with a G5 school.
3. The rest of the non-conference games must be Power 5 opponents. If the SEC/ACC want to stay at 8 games like pansies, they can. But they have to go out and schedule three other P5 teams to complete their schedules. Sorry Alabama. You can't skate by with 9 P5 opponents and rest up your players for the other cupcakes while many Big 12/Big Ten/Pac-12 teams are playing 11 P5 foes.
4. Your 8 or 9 conference games.
Even this may not insure that scheduling is equitable. Alabama may pay lower Power 5 teams like Pitt and Oregon State to come play them (and not return an away visit to their stadiums)...and thus fulfill their "you must play P5 teams" quota. But it's still going to be better competition and more compelling viewing overall. Additionally, it would provide FAR MORE data points for the CFP and the media polls to judge conference versus conference comparisons.
Of course, an 8-team playoff which gets P5 conference champs auto-bids would also be helpful.
For starters, how many PAC 12 teams are in the top 10?? How many Big Ten teams are in the top 10?! Now how many SEC teams are in the top 10??
This is the tip of the iceberg. Go to fbschedules.com, and look at the games before and after the big in-conference rivalry games. What tends to happen to the Big Ten/PAC 12 teams down the stretch?? They beat each other up, right?? Same thing happens in the SEC; and because the NCAA only has 2 bye weeks, but it is not nearly enough to help teams recuperate. This is why ULM, Georgia State, etc. get scheduled. And sometimes, those teams will beat the SEC team in their own house!!! Free publicity for the G5. And I will tell you something else too:. Big Ten coaches would prefer going to the SEC's scheduling method too, from what I've heard.
RE: Scheduling Czar - micahandme - 09-23-2019 12:10 PM
It would change the paradigm of the sport, I know. The NFL...nobody thinks "we need to go undefeated or we'll never make the Super Bowl." Most Super Bowl teams are around 13-3 in the regular season. If the strength of schedule increases ACROSS THE BOARD, playoff teams will be 10-2 more regularly...but that does NOT mean that the teams are worse teams. It just means that they played a harder schedule. And...another counter-argument to those above, a 9-3 coach will not get fired in this system. 9-3 will be a great season...instead of being three-losses away from a great season, as it currently is for the blue blood programs.
An apt analogy I just realized this weekend...every Saturday during college football season is like the first weekend of the NCAA March Madness tournament. Fans tune in to root for the upsets across the country...and out of 70 games on any given weekend, they'll get a few of them. And that keeps us coming back for more. But the really GOOD basketball is on the second weekend, when the best teams are playing against each other to make the Final Four. Better scheduling would improve the quality of the product, while not completely killing off the "Cinderella" component. (Instead of hoping for App. St. to beat Michigan once every decade, you'd be cheering for Maryland to knock off Texas...wait...I think that already...)
RE: Scheduling Czar - Kaplony - 09-23-2019 12:34 PM
(09-23-2019 12:48 AM)micahandme Wrote: Watching Notre Dame and Georgia was so much fun last night. And then we were ready to go to bed but UCLA/Washington State sucked us in.
And as we are enjoying these games among P5 teams, they show highlights of the great and glorious top 2 teams in the country. The teams with enough talent to supply an entire NFL division in next year's draft...and they are facing off against Charlotte and Southern Miss. Teams that may have 1 or 2 NFL players on their roster collectively. Ridiculous match-ups. Stupid games...that do nothing for the regular season or for the post-season.
It's time for college football to be PROACTIVE about their brand. Why wait for the popularity peak to head downward? Keep the trajectory upward.
1. One pre-season home game for each school. Doesn't count towards records. Teams can sell tickets and make money...but it's a glorified scrimmage.
2. One G5 team may be scheduled. Most P5 schools will pay the team to come...some may choose to do a home-away with a G5 school.
3. The rest of the non-conference games must be Power 5 opponents. If the SEC/ACC want to stay at 8 games like pansies, they can. But they have to go out and schedule three other P5 teams to complete their schedules. Sorry Alabama. You can't skate by with 9 P5 opponents and rest up your players for the other cupcakes while many Big 12/Big Ten/Pac-12 teams are playing 11 P5 foes.
4. Your 8 or 9 conference games.
Even this may not insure that scheduling is equitable. Alabama may pay lower Power 5 teams like Pitt and Oregon State to come play them (and not return an away visit to their stadiums)...and thus fulfill their "you must play P5 teams" quota. But it's still going to be better competition and more compelling viewing overall. Additionally, it would provide FAR MORE data points for the CFP and the media polls to judge conference versus conference comparisons.
Of course, an 8-team playoff which gets P5 conference champs auto-bids would also be helpful.
Where was this thread the previous three weeks when the team playing Charlotte was playing Georgia Tech, Texas A&M, and Syracuse?
Clemson has absolutely nothing to apologize for when it comes to OOC scheduling.
RE: Scheduling Czar - Gamecock - 09-23-2019 01:11 PM
Penn State doesn’t exactly have the strongest record in scheduling OOC so I’m not really sure I get the dig against SEC/ACC schools.
RE: Scheduling Czar - cubucks - 09-23-2019 01:20 PM
(09-23-2019 01:11 PM)Gamecock Wrote: Penn State doesn’t exactly have the strongest record in scheduling OOC so I’m not really sure I get the dig against SEC/ACC schools.I like the topic as I have thought too that maybe there needs to be a single czar/commissioner to take over scheduling. I think he should have left the "pansies" part out though.
RE: Scheduling Czar - Cyniclone - 09-23-2019 01:37 PM
So under this rule, schools are encouraged/required to pass on games against UCF and Boise State in favor of Rutgers and Vanderbilt, in the name of making their schedules tougher.
RE: Scheduling Czar - Fighting Muskie - 09-23-2019 01:50 PM
The way it works now, no one wants to risk losing OOC games because a loss can come back to haunt them even if they go 9-0 or 8-0 in conference play and then win the CCG when it comes to getting a playoff berth.
Give P5 conference champs automatic berths to the playoffs and then we might start seeing more Alabama vs Ohio St OOC games because a loss won’t hurt either school and for the winner it could mean a boost in seeding as a reward for playing and beating stiff competition.
Weeks 0 and 00 would be the preseason. FBS schools can use one of these two weeks as a tune up against an FCS at home for that doesn’t count towards stats or records. (Schools using the Hawaii exemption would need to schedule their FCS pre-season game in week 00 and their Hawaii exemption game in week 0)
Labor Day weekend would mark the beginning of the regular season. 12 games, P5s must play 11 P5 opponents to be considered for the CFP.
The revenue for the pre-season home game helps to offset playing one more road game. With more P5 vs P5 matchups average ticket prices for regular season games should go up.
RE: Scheduling Czar - JRsec - 09-23-2019 01:58 PM
Penn State sure has struggled against its patsies this year. Maybe they need to get into the conference schedule to play those powerhouses like Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers, Minnesota, and Illinois.
Now that returning the dig is over, the only way to solve this, which doesn't require a tsar is to simply require 10 P games for consideration to the CFP and let the AD's do their job.
I'm all about Dabo's idea to move the Spring game to mid to late August as a preseason game against a local G5 or FCS school. That way when we eventually move to 12 P games (and it will come as a way to boost revenue in future contracts, but not all at once) then each P school will have the 7 home tickets they want for their gate.
With 10 P games (5 home and 5 away) required you still have 2 buy games for that 7th home game until the preseason games gets approved.
But right now there is no required consistency so therefore there is no consistency period.
I've been around a long time and the mindset of gaming the system with scheduling was done to win mythical national championships voted by UPI and the AP. Then it was gamed to get the better bowl bids by having the snazzier record. 40 years ago running up scores on the hapless was even more common than it is today and they did it to look impressive. The thought was everyone knows you are playing a patsy so 70+ still leaves you room to crow about how great you were.
The football being played today is largely inferior to the football played in the 70's and early 80's. The top teams are solid, but the wholesale lack of defenses (see UCLA 67 Washington State 63) permeating the sport and the overly intrusive officiating is hurting the game. And I think that is largely due to a general lack of available talent to an increased number of teams trying to play FBS football.
So while I agree we need more P games what we need is fewer upper tier schools (and I mean FBS not P5) and we need a required number of games within that grouping. Give me a ceiling 56 P schools and 32 G schools to make up the FBS, and weed the lower end out. Do that then scheduling 12 FBS games with 10 required to be P games (for the P schools) and we'll have something.
Right now scheduling G5's is vastly inequitable. Play a MWC or AAC school and you have a tussle on your hands. There is little difference in playing the bottom 1/3rd of the G5 and playing FCS games. So without a tighter grouping and without requirements savvy AD's will still game the system.
And I must ask, is there really much difference between playing the bottom 4 schools in the PAC, ACC, SEC, and Big 10 and the bottom 2 in the Big 12 than there is in playing an AAC or MWC school? I don't think so, and in many cases the AAC or MWC school may be better.
RE: Scheduling Czar - YNot - 09-23-2019 01:58 PM
Just to move FCS games to a 13th exhibition game would do wonders. That would open up about 130 scheduling slots for FBS v. FBS matchups. Some of those would be filled with P5 v. P5 matchups.
I also think teams wouldn't be so reluctant to schedule more high-value OOC matchups if there was expansion of the CFP to include automatic bids for conference champions.
But, I would love a requirement for at least one out-of-conference true road game each season - though I don't believe that is realistic.
RE: Scheduling Czar - UCGrad1992 - 09-23-2019 02:01 PM
There are so many college football games played Friday thru Saturday that there's always a few top notch games featured week-to-week. Heck, games are televised on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, FOX, ABC, CBS, CBSSports, FS1, FS2, B1G Network, SEC Network, P12 Network, ACC Network, et al. I probably missed a few but I did not include any digital/streaming networks. What scheduling needs to change when you can watch just about any game now and flip to the one of most interest? If there's more than one on at the same time...no problem! DVR one or watch with split screen. How is the brand hurting when it seems folks are craving football 24-7 from the comfort of their living rooms with so many choices of games?
RE: Scheduling Czar - UTEPDallas - 09-23-2019 02:37 PM
This would never happen. A program like Virginia Tech, Iowa, West Virginia, Arizona State and Mississippi will not run the risk of becoming a perennial 6-6 program by playing 11-12 P5 games every season. Others like Pitt, Oregon State, Kentucky, Kansas and Illinois would never go to a bowl again and they would take the G5’s spot as the new have-nots. This would just create more power at the top and make the gap even wider as it currently is even among P5 schools. Programs like Ohio State will struggle at first but they have the resources to compete at the highest level.
RE: Scheduling Czar - OdinFrigg - 09-23-2019 02:56 PM
The topic is worth dialogue, but the "pansies" comment injected bias and attitude that wasn't necessary. I know Penn State's athletic history very directly.
I do have an issue with powerful P5 schools regularly scheduling very weak ooc opponents. I am for allowing such games being "spring game exhibitions" if they are basically local/regional and are not a too absurd of a matchup.
I favor 10 P5 games, at least one G5 allowed, and one "whoever" you want within reason. For example, if Clemson and South Carolina want to continue rotating in playing FCS schools in-state, allow it. The spring can accommodate such, or can be external.
Creating a scheduling czar would be highly resisted, controversial, and a political can of worms, quickly. There already are guidelines. This process is not open-ended.
Would a czar tell Notre Dame whom to schedule? Good luck with that one.
RE: Scheduling Czar - Rube Dali - 09-23-2019 03:52 PM
Look at basketball where everybody who has the strength to do so is heading to a 20-game conference schedule(except for the WCC and the SEC).
RE: Scheduling Czar - quo vadis - 09-23-2019 03:59 PM
There's no need. So many college football games are televised now that there are always good or at least decent games to watch every weekend.
If you can't find a game you like among the 30 or 40 broadcast every Saturday, then you just don't like college football.
RE: Scheduling Czar - Mav - 09-24-2019 12:26 PM
If we get a czar it'll be a bunch of made-for-TV matchups with zero regard to rivalries, tradition, or the health of the teams that are playing. You centralize scheduling, and it'll have the same effect that the Oklahoma and Georgia lawsuits have had: The Mouse always wins.
RE: Scheduling Czar - Gamecock - 09-24-2019 02:30 PM
The cleanest solution for the short term would just be for the five P5 conferences to get together and agree to 10 P5 games a year. About half of schools are already doing this.