I just dont get why this idea wont work for conf. scheduling

[john01992]

It's less likely with only 3 OOC for obvious reasons.

not really.if other schools can do it with 9 conf games then team sec should have no problems

 

[WhiteMamba]

Yeah, but the old Big 8 had it too. I was pissed when the Big XII formed and we went to division play, especially since we lost our annual game with Nebraska.

Tell me about it. We miss USC for the next 2 years.

 

[WhiteMamba]

9 conference games sucks. That only leaves 3 OOC games, which leaves very little for people to compare with other teams from other conferences.

I hate any and all 9 conference game schedules, and Nick Saban needs to shut his whore mouth!

I think I found my new sig qUOted by 4d20...

I KID

 

[4down20]

You do realize that you could get rid of one of your FCS caliber teams and play an SEC team, right? That doesn't affect comparing teams to teams in other conferences.

That would be better, but that's not what is going to happen, nor is it really the right direction overall. Getting rid of FCS has nothing to do with with number of conference games, it has to do with the fact that 1 FCS team per year is allowed to count towards being bowl eligible. And being bowl eligible for the teams is not so much about the money from the bowls(some teams often end up paying), bowl eligible teams are given more practice time for the year than teams that don't go to bowl games, and it's a vital part of maintaining a good program from year to year. The bowl games themselves of course make out big time with the money, so they want as many bowl games as possible etc.

I'm not sure where this idea that going to 9 conference games kills the FCS teams on the schedule, because it won't.

Like I said, there needs to be more OOC games so that the systems in place can do a better job of determining who are the best teams. When you have too many conference games and not enough OOC games, things become regionalized and it becomes near impossible to tell which teams are stronger because there are no real links between them.

For example, between Alabama and Oregon there is Tennessee this year. Quality link even if Tennessee isn't considered a quality game. And it goes beyond just these 2 teams, it carries on deeper between the Pac12 and the SEC as these teams have links between them.

 

[4down20]

I think I found my new sig qUOted by 4d20...

I KID

 

[TexasExes98]

they may not read the hoop, but the glory of the internet is that good idea's do get posted online first before anything.

for example when the big east name change got leaked as the "america12" the response was very negative and a lot of people online suggested "AAC". and what do you know? the AAC was the name they eventually chose.

They don't listen to you b/c you're a fan of 5 teams......

 

[Ironbreaker]

FCS schools shouldn't be allowed on the schedule, and the best way to do that is to remove them from making teams bowl eligible. Currently, 1 FCS game is allowed for becoming bowl eligible and it's ridiculous.

All 9 conference games does is make college football more regional. I'd like to see conferences go away completely to be 100% honest with you, and for college football to be more national.

The 6 AQ conferences need to all go to 16 schools. Play 9 conference games, then 2 ooc games vs another aq conference and rotate the opposing conference every year. So year one pac plays sec, year 2 vs B1G, year 3 vs ACC and so on. Keep one slot for an fcs school so they get their payday or schedule some mid major.

I definitely agree with eliminating fcs wins as part of bowl eligibility, and wouldn't shed a tear to see the scheduling of them go away completely.

We'd have good football every week that way. No more annihilation snooze fest football weekends.

 

[uncfan103]

That would be better, but that's not what is going to happen, nor is it really the right direction overall. Getting rid of FCS has nothing to do with with number of conference games, it has to do with the fact that 1 FCS team per year is allowed to count towards being bowl eligible. And being bowl eligible for the teams is not so much about the money from the bowls(some teams often end up paying), bowl eligible teams are given more practice time for the year than teams that don't go to bowl games, and it's a vital part of maintaining a good program from year to year. The bowl games themselves of course make out big time with the money, so they want as many bowl games as possible etc.

I'm not sure where this idea that going to 9 conference games kills the FCS teams on the schedule, because it won't.

Like I said, there needs to be more OOC games so that the systems in place can do a better job of determining who are the best teams. When you have too many conference games and not enough OOC games, things become regionalized and it becomes near impossible to tell which teams are stronger because there are no real links between them.

For example, between Alabama and Oregon there is Tennessee this year. Quality link even if Tennessee isn't considered a quality game. And it goes beyond just these 2 teams, it carries on deeper between the Pac12 and the SEC as these teams have links between them.

Nine conference games won't get rid of playing FCS teams, but it doesn't prevent playing other teams from good conferences. You're playing two FCS caliber teams this year. You could easily replace one of the two with Florida or Georgia or Vanderbilt or whoever you don't play in the sec and still have games against an FCS team, an acc team and a PAC 12 team.

 

[nolehusker]

I hate the round robin crap for one reason. You can have ties!!!!

 

[BigAppleBadger]

9 conference games sucks. That only leaves 3 OOC games, which leaves very little for people to compare with other teams from other conferences.

I hate any and all 9 conference game schedules, and Nick Saban needs to shut his whore mouth!

This argument would have merit if everyone (my team included) hadn't been wasting one of their 4 OOC games on an FCS opponent all this time.

9 conference games + ban games against FCS (come on SEC, do it) is clearly better than schedules in the past.

 

[BigAppleBadger]

Why do people think round robin will always produce a clear champion based on head to head? It doesn't... you can have the situation that the Big Ten had in 2010:

MSU beat Wisconsin
Wisconsin beat Ohio State
Ohio State beat MSU

Each had only the one loss above.

Who wins the conference based on head to head? In the end Wisconsin went to the Rose Bowl because it was the highest ranked in the BCS (largely because it was first to lose, and poll voters have a one week attention span), but that works just as well in a conference with 11+ teams where teams skip opponents.