Conference scheduling

[chrisrenrut]

I have not been keeping up with sporting news very well lately, so feel free to puts this somewhere else if already discussed.

The perpetually mis-named Big-10 will go to a 9 conference game football schedule in 2016. That will mean that the PAC-12, Big-12, and Big-10 will be playing 9 conference games at that point. Will that, Combined with a strength of schedule component of the playoffs, pressure the SEC into playing more conference games, ot at least more competitive OOC schedules?

[SoCalPat]

I have not been keeping up with sporting news very well lately, so feel free to puts this somewhere else if already discussed.

The perpetually mis-named Big-10 will go to a 9 conference game football schedule in 2016. That will mean that the PAC-12, Big-12, and Big-10 will be playing 9 conference games at that point. Will that, Combined with a strength of schedule component of the playoffs, pressure the SEC into playing more conference games, ot at least more competitive OOC schedules?

I was hoping the other way around -- the seven straight BCS titles by the SEC would've put pressure on leagues to move toward playing an 8-game conference slate. But if everyone goes to 9 games, the SEC should as well. If it doesn't, it has no ground to stand on when it doesn't get a 2nd team into the four-team playoff.

[concerned]

I was hoping the other way around -- the seven straight BCS titles by the SEC would've put pressure on leagues to move toward playing an 8-game conference slate. But if everyone goes to 9 games, the SEC should as well. If it doesn't, it has no ground to stand on when it doesn't get a 2nd team into the four-team playoff.

I saw a tweet earlier today that one of the items on the agenda for the Pac 12 league meetings starting today is a discussion of the possibility of going to an 8 game schedule. FWIW. Maybe it is just to dismiss it and get it off the table.

[SoCalPat]

I saw a tweet earlier today that one of the items on the agenda for the Pac 12 league meetings starting today is a discussion of the possibility of going to an 8 game schedule. FWIW. Maybe it is just to dismiss it and get it off the table.

I'm for whatever gets everyone on the same page. If it's 9 game league skeds, that's cool. But my first preference is 8. That puts BYU on the schedule every year and USU whenever we want without eliminating the FBS tuneup (which the Big 10 is getting rid of, incidentally) or a marquee non-conference game or two.

[SoCalPat]

Are we sure about this? I read that the Big10 was considering it but decided against.

Starting in 2016, give or take a season.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8942451/barry-alvarez-says-big-ten-schedule-fcs-teams

[Utah]

I would rather the NCAA make a concensous decision. 8 or 9, I don't care, just do the same. Look at the PAC-12 this year:

4 - Oregon
6 - Stanford
13 - Oregon St
17 - UCLA

If the PAC-12 goes to an 8 games schedule, with the top half of the teams winning that game, our ranked teams probably look more like this:

4 - Oregon
Stanford (what happens if instead of playing Arizona the week before ND, they beat a mediocre WAC/MWC team at home?) If they beat ND, they play for a NC instead of ND.
UCLA, you drop Oreg St or Cal off the schedule and they are ranked closer to 10
ASU - if you drop Oreg St or Oregon, the end up with 9 wins and ranked
Arizona - if you drop Oreg St, Oreg or Stanford, they end up with 9 wins and ranked.

So, instead of 4 ranked teams, you end up with 6 and possibly Stanford in the NC game.

Also, you drop Oreg St or Washington from Utah's schedule then we end up in a bowl and everyone is talking about how Wilson is the next Smith instead of dreaming of Schultz.

The PAC-12 is hands down the best conference in the country (especially if Stanford beats Alabama in the title game).

That one game is HUGE in national perception of a conference/team. That one game cost two teams a ranking in the top 25, a potential berth in the NC game, and kept an additional team out of a bowl game.

Until there is concensous, the SEC will be top dog. It is too easy for them when the PAC-12, B1G, and Big 12 all play 9 conference games. The SEC gets too many easy wins.

[FountainOfUte]

I would rather the NCAA make a concensous decision. 8 or 9, I don't care, just do the same. Look at the PAC-12 this year:

4 - Oregon
6 - Stanford
13 - Oregon St
17 - UCLA

If the PAC-12 goes to an 8 games schedule, with the top half of the teams winning that game, our ranked teams probably look more like this:

4 - Oregon
Stanford (what happens if instead of playing Arizona the week before ND, they beat a mediocre WAC/MWC team at home?) If they beat ND, they play for a NC instead of ND.
UCLA, you drop Oreg St or Cal off the schedule and they are ranked closer to 10
ASU - if you drop Oreg St or Oregon, the end up with 9 wins and ranked
Arizona - if you drop Oreg St, Oreg or Stanford, they end up with 9 wins and ranked.

So, instead of 4 ranked teams, you end up with 6 and possibly Stanford in the NC game.

Also, you drop Oreg St or Washington from Utah's schedule then we end up in a bowl and everyone is talking about how Wilson is the next Smith instead of dreaming of Schultz.

The PAC-12 is hands down the best conference in the country (especially if Stanford beats Alabama in the title game).

That one game is HUGE in national perception of a conference/team. That one game cost two teams a ranking in the top 25, a potential berth in the NC game, and kept an additional team out of a bowl game.

Until there is concensous, the SEC will be top dog. It is too easy for them when the PAC-12, B1G, and Big 12 all play 9 conference games. The SEC gets too many easy wins.

I respectfully disagree with your point that PAC teams should avoid playing each other. What we need to do is start beating the SEC when we play them. Same goes for all of the other power conferences. That's the key to bringing the SEC down a notch. If SEC dominance is smoke and mirrors due to rigged schedules, it's sure not playing out on the field like that when it matters.

The new College Football Playoff committee will factor strength of schedule into the makeup of the Playoff participants. We'll be exposed if we start scheduling like the SEC, because unlike them, the PAC hasn't won seven BCS championships in a row.

Lastly, you're laying all the negative points and worst cases to the nine-game schedule. There's another side to that coin wherein our better teams bolster their resumes.

Anyway, you say that the SEC gets too many easy wins. While I agree, they also get the wins that matter on the biggest stages. I think people undersell that as the real base of the SEC's power right now. Sure, I think the SEC is a little overrated, but I also think the SEC is still the best football conference. That's not going to change until other power conferences beat them straight up with some regularity.

[FountainOfUte]

But they lose other BCS games regularly (see Florida this year or Bama in 98).

Yes, and no. The Wikipedia page for the BCS bowls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowl_Championship_Series) says the SEC is 17-8 (.680) in BCS bowls. That's a pretty good percentage against the alleged best teams in the country. Among the conferences that have appeared in more than five BCS games, the SEC has the best record. The PAC is the next best at 13-7 (.650). Believe it or not, the B1G, Big 12, and ACC all have losing records in BCS bowls (in fact, the Big East has a better record than all three of them). And to reiterate, the only BCS Championship game the SEC has lost, ever, was when it played itself. They're 9-1. No other power conference has a winning record in the BCS Championship game.

[SoCalPat]

I respectfully disagree with your point that PAC teams should avoid playing each other. What we need to do is start beating the SEC when we play them. Same goes for all of the other power conferences. That's the key to bringing the SEC down a notch. If SEC dominance is smoke and mirrors due to rigged schedules, it's sure not playing out on the field like that when it matters.

We're going to have to rely on other power conference schools beating the SEC, because we simply do not play them regularly enough to make any kind of impact. If we played SEC schools regularly enough, it would be a worthy ideal. Since we don't, other avenues should be explored. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong here, but before Oregon-Auburn for the 2010 BCS title, the last bowl involving then-current Pac-12 and SEC was the 1989 Freedom Bowl between Washington and Florida.

Total games vs. SEC by Pac-12 schools:
Arizona, 10
ASU, 12
Cal, 21 (10 vs. SEC newbies Missouri and Texas A&M)
Colorado, 97 (75 vs. Missouri; 9 vs. Texas A&M)
Oregon, 11
OSU, 14
Stanford, 7
Utah 12
UCLA 35
USC 33
Washington 12
Washington State 10

Minus the L.A. schools, your Pac-12 schools see an SEC team about once a decade. We could probably see more SEC schools by going to an 8-game schedule. We'll almost never see them in a 9-game sked.

[FountainOfUte]

No doubt that the SEC is the strongest at the top. Arguments can be made that it is not as strong at the Big12 top to bottom. Either way, it's a great football conference. It's just not quite as great as it would appear at first when you realize that all those good teams don't play each other during the regular season (unlike the round robin Big12). And the SEC has unfairly benefitted from reputation a few times to get into those 10 BCS title games. An 11-1 SEC team has priority over any other 11-1 team, even when the SOS numbers favor the other team. It's that bias that drives people to say the SEC is overrated. It's not overrated - it really is a great conference. But that shouldn't earn it any special treatment.

So, 17-8 in BCS games. Is that counting the 9-1 in the BCS championship game. That makes the SEC 8-7 in other BCS games.

As for your last question, I don't know. I was wondering the same thing but didn't bother to look into it.

But I get what you mean about the benefit of reputation the SEC gets. Maybe the Big 12 is stronger top to bottom. The point is, the SEC is winning the games that matter, and the bigger the stage, the better they do. Their record sort of speaks for itself. Yes, I think they inflate their own solid reputation. Bully for them; we should all be doing the same. And it DROVE ME CRAZY that two SEC teams ever got into the same championship game. I'm not against that happening as a principle, but there better be ZERO doubt you have the two best teams. I don't think it was that clear that year. Someone else should have gotten a swing at LSU. Off the top of my head, I think it was Okie State that had a VERY strong case that same year and barely lost out to Alabama for a spot in the NCG.

Anyway, I think we agree more than not about this. We can crunch numbers all day long, but perception is reality. And frankly, the numbers back up the perception about the SEC. The ONLY way to change the perception is by punching the SEC in the mouth. Repeatedly. As long as they win *most* of their big-stage games, they'll continue to be seen (and treated) like the best conference -- and get the benefits and spoils that come with that distinction. (Did you see how many SEC players were drafted in the first round. Holy smokes!)

But knocking them down a peg, I think, is easy to say but will be very hard to do. They're freaking rolling right now. An believe me, I HATE to admit that.

[FountainOfUte]

We're going to have to rely on other power conference schools beating the SEC, because we simply do not play them regularly enough to make any kind of impact.

I totally agree with you. When I say "we" I casually mean "everyone else" -- more specifically the other power conferences. But you're right, the PAC and SEC don't match up often. In recent memory I recall LSU beating Oregon (on a neutral field, right?), and going 2-0 in a H-and-H series against ASU in the last decade.

I've referred to this in another post on another board, but I think there are some natural battle lines being drawn in college fb. On one side, you have the SEC. On the other I think are the PAC, B1G and ACC. I think the Big 12 philosophically (and I use that term very loosely) is more like the SEC than the other three: football first, second, and last. I don't think any one conference is going to rise up and knock the SEC off its perch, but maybe the PAC/B1G/ACC can trade blow for blow with the SEC (and Big12). I'll confess, I'm painting with some mighty broad brushes here, but the perception is that football happens primarily in the South. I think the PAC/B1G/ACC have the resources to turn that tide and balance it out a little more.

[SoCalPat]

I totally agree with you. When I say "we" I casually mean "everyone else" -- more specifically the other power conferences. But you're right, the PAC and SEC don't match up often. In recent memory I recall LSU beating Oregon (on a neutral field, right?), and going 2-0 in a H-and-H series against ASU in the last decade.

I've referred to this in another post on another board, but I think there are some natural battle lines being drawn in college fb. On one side, you have the SEC. On the other I think are the PAC, B1G and ACC. I think the Big 12 philosophically (and I use that term very loosely) is more like the SEC than the other three: football first, second, and last. I don't think any one conference is going to rise up and knock the SEC off its perch, but maybe the PAC/B1G/ACC can trade blow for blow with the SEC (and Big12). I'll confess, I'm painting with some mighty broad brushes here, but the perception is that football happens primarily in the South. I think the PAC/B1G/ACC have the resources to turn that tide and balance it out a little more.

In the pre-playoff era, you could've done that with a major bowl game in our territory, a la the Chik Fil-A in Atlanta. The Holiday Bowl was that game, but it's been Pac-12/Big 12 for the entire BCS era. With geography playing a part in the non-playoff CFP bowls, you still can't arrange those games. For better or worse, our best chances at taking down the SEC a peg are limited almost exclusively to a semifinal or national title game tilt.

[FountainOfUte]

Out of conference scheduling was the one thing I liked about the 4 16-team superconference idea. You play 9 conference games and then 1 OOC in each of the other superconferences.

Home games and money will make it impossible, but I would love to see the Pac-12, Big12, Big10, and SEC agree to play 9 conference games and 3 OOC games against the other 3 conferences. (or 8 and 4 if you really want to include the ACC).

I don't want to see 16-team conferences happen, but I would LOVE to see more inter-conference H-and-H's. I'm still so, so, SO bummed the agreement with the B1G fell apart -- and it was the PAC's fault. What I don't get is why that alliance still could not have been made fully in all other sports and on an "as it makes sense" basis in fb.

[SoCalPat]

Wanna knock down the SEC a peg or 10? Bring back segregation:



Of Michigan State's 17 black players, 10 were from the South. Twelve of its 22 starters were black, including their quarterback, Jimmy Raye; eight of their defensive starters were black, including Bubba Smith (http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/1306/remembering-bubba-smith) of Beaumont, Texas, who was 6-foot-8 and 285 pounds, wore size-52 extra-long suits, drove an Oldsmobile with his name written in gold letters on the door, and was fast enough to do his sprints with the backs. This diversity was fostered by Michigan State's gregarious head coach (http://sportsquotation.blogspot.com/2010/09/five-great-duffy-daugherty-quotes.html), Duffy Daugherty, who scoured the Pacific and the South and even went to Hawaii to find recruits. There were times Bear Bryant (along with other Southern coaches) directed black athletes he couldn't recruit himself into Daugherty's hands.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9221734/college-football-games-century-notre-dame-michigan-st-play-tie-1966

[concerned]

Wanna knock down the SEC a peg or 10? Bring back segregation:



http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9221734/college-football-games-century-notre-dame-michigan-st-play-tie-1966


that's how we got Jerry Chambers and Merv Jackson, too.