Schedule

[mturn087]

I’m for one getting tired of all college programs scheduling no name teams every opportunity they get. Everyone is up in arms that we have 5 undefeated teams that the BCS doesn’t work yet they fail to realize that most teams haven’t played anyone with a pulse all year. I’m a diehard Husker fan but to me it’s a bit disappointing to see the Huskers play 3 Sun-Belt teams. Virginia Tech was nice though look at Florida’s non-conference schedule it’s a joke and they claimed they were the best. Texas was the same way and if not for a 60.01 mark of the game they wouldn’t have made through a season undefeated. The 12th game was added so that teams could get another game in yet it made everyone just added another game for revenue. Should I ever have been an Athletic Director I would make a point to schedule like this for out of conference.

1 Warm-up team i.e. Sun-belt, MACs, WACs bottom feeder

1 Bottom feeder in an BCS Conference like Vanderbilt, Washington State, or Indiana

1 Middle of the pack team from BCS Conference like a Purdue

1 Elite team from a BCS Conference like a Florida, USC, Ohio State, or a Texas.

Yes, I realize instead of having 7-8 home games a year it may mean 6 but, it would be what best for college football, and a fan base can has something to be proud of should their team make it through it undefeated. Plus if more teams started doing it we may find a champion that has played a schedule worthy of being call the National Champion.

Questions/Opinions anyone I’m interested in hearing feed back

[The Maudfather]

With the current system in place, what is the need to play a tough OOC schedule? Look at OU (Preseason #3) and Texas (Preseason #2) for example. OU played BYU, Tulsa, Idaho St, and Miami, winning 2 and losing 2. Texas played Louisiana Monroe, Wyoming, UTEP and Central Florida and ran the table pretty handily. Now lets say that OU plays Texas's OOC schedule. They go undefeated into the RRS and lose 16-13 and they are still a top 10 team, or you could even venture to say that Bradford may not have been hurt had they not played BYU. My point is, what is the reward for playing a tough OOC schedule? Texas proved this year that you don't have to play anyone to get into the MNC game. I think as long as we have the current system in place, you are alway going to see teams like Texas and Florida scheduling cupcakes.

[hskrpwr13]

With the current system in place, what is the need to play a tough OOC schedule? Look at OU (Preseason #3) and Texas (Preseason #2) for example. OU played BYU, Tulsa, Idaho St, and Miami, winning 2 and losing 2. Texas played Louisiana Monroe, Wyoming, UTEP and Central Florida and ran the table pretty handily. Now lets say that OU plays Texas's OOC schedule. They go undefeated into the RRS and lose 16-13 and they are still a top 10 team, or you could even venture to say that Bradford may not have been hurt had they not played BYU. My point is, what is the reward for playing a tough OOC schedule? Texas proved this year that you don't have to play anyone to get into the MNC game. I think as long as we have the current system in place, you are alway going to see teams like Texas and Florida scheduling cupcakes.

 

Ding! Ding! Ding! I've been touting this thought process for a while. I'm somewhat surprised Osborne doens't buy into this. Its neat playing the elite teams, but at the end of the season, the voters care mostly about wins and losses; not really the level of competition. Just like SEC fans like to spout, the Big12 has good enough teams that scheduling tough OOC is mostly unnecessary.

[kansas husker]

I couldn't agree more opponents of a playoff claim that that would mean too many games. Is it really neccassey to watch Florida play charelston souther and troy and fiu are we sure these games had an impact on the season. Move those games to the end of thev year and we now have enough games for an 8 team playoff

[longtimefan]

I've always felt if you want to be in the hunt for a national title, then you schedule the easiest route to get there. You schedule 4 cream puffs and then your season starts. Win your 8 conference games (sometimes 7 will even work) and then win your conference championship game and you're probably in the National Championship game. Why add a potential loss to your OOC schedule? You have lots to lose with a loss and lose nothing by winning those 4 games. It's even an easier route to the National Championship game for the Big 10 and Pac-10 teams.

 

Oh sure, you'll get some bitching from some fans and media for the cream puff schedule, but when you're in the hunt for the National CHampionship at the end of the year, and who cares. The bitching fans won't complain anymore that season. Even the media will say that you won your conference and are undefeated so you deserve to be in the title game.

 

The fans at NU will still fill the seats for those 4 cream puffs regardless. Personally I'd rather watch us beat some nobody badly than watch us get beat by a good team and our chances for the National Championship are gone and we fall in the ratings lowering our chances for a BCS bowl if we stumble one more time in the conference.

 

Plus 8 home games makes us a lot more money than 7. And money is what makes all our sports programs succeed.

[irafreak]

I have no problem with teams scheduling creampuffs. Just don't tout your record when you do. Most teams eventally get bit in the butt from a team that HAS been playing real contests. Don't you think VaTech had a slight preparation advantage to us having played bama first? I like the current system. Just think it needs to be tweaked... ie all conferences either need a conf champ or none.

 

A playoff would rob us of the games like wyoming/fresno (doulbe ot) and last night's midd tenn/south miss.... both very competitive and fun to watch games.

 

You toss a playoff in and who goes? How many teams is fair? Who gets left out? What if you have 3 undefeateds and a whole bunch of one loss teams? Suppose that one loss team wins the title through a playoff. That fair to the other 3 teams that did their part during the regular season? There's no fair way to do it....add more teams? Then you'll end up with some lopsided games like the ncaa bball tournament.

[huKSer]

I’m for one getting tired of all college programs scheduling no name teams every opportunity they get. Everyone is up in arms that we have 5 undefeated teams that the BCS doesn’t work yet they fail to realize that most teams haven’t played anyone with a pulse all year. I’m a diehard Husker fan but to me it’s a bit disappointing to see the Huskers play 3 Sun-Belt teams. Virginia Tech was nice though look at Florida’s non-conference schedule it’s a joke and they claimed they were the best. Texas was the same way and if not for a 60.01 mark of the game they wouldn’t have made through a season undefeated. The 12th game was added so that teams could get another game in yet it made everyone just added another game for revenue. Should I ever have been an Athletic Director I would make a point to schedule like this for out of conference.

1 Warm-up team i.e. Sun-belt, MACs, WACs bottom feeder

1 Bottom feeder in an BCS Conference like Vanderbilt, Washington State, or Indiana

1 Middle of the pack team from BCS Conference like a Purdue

1 Elite team from a BCS Conference like a Florida, USC, Ohio State, or a Texas.

Yes, I realize instead of having 7-8 home games a year it may mean 6 but, it would be what best for college football, and a fan base can has something to be proud of should their team make it through it undefeated. Plus if more teams started doing it we may find a champion that has played a schedule worthy of being call the National Champion.

Questions/Opinions anyone I’m interested in hearing feed back

Easier to say it than to do it. They would need to agree to play against NU, and if they want the KSU/KU 4 cupcake plan, NU is not getting these games without a big payout.