The pathetic state of non-conference scheduling

[UGAHusker]

Washington has it right:

 

2007:

@Syracuse

Boise St.

Ohio St.

@Hawaii

 

2008:

@Oregon

BYU

Oklahoma

 

2009:

LSU

Idaho

@ Notre Dame

 

2010:

@ BYU

Syracuse

Nebraska

 

So I suppouse that you think that Troy has had it right for the last 10 years with there "Anybody, anytime, anywhere" policy to scheduling games (crazy difficult NC schedule)? Why do that to yourself when the conference schedule is going to kill you enough? I'm not saying that I completely agree with Florida's policy of never playing a non-conference game out of the state of Florida and regularly scheduling powerhouses such as Charleston Southern, but when you consider that EVERY YEAR they have to play Georgia, LSU, FSU, and Tennessee and rotate out with Bama, Auburn, and Ole Miss, why make things any more difficult?

 

The Big XII is tough enough. Throw in two or more marquee OOC games and you're limiting your post-season prospects.

[irafreak]

Yeah it's not practical/possible for every BCS school to have that schedule. Revenue from home games and an extra shot at being bowl eligible mean a lot. Washington has it set up but who really wants to play us in their noncon? I have no problem with next years' schedule other than south dakota st. Oh well you have Idaho and washington on there...and I don't mind overmatched blowouts. It's kind of like a preseason game in the nfl except the experience for the young players is far more valuable at this level...

[Back In Black]

idk why would you want to play 3 tough teams when that could jeopardize your national championship season when youre conference schedule can get you there. id be ok playing a top 25 team in the non conference, and 3 other quality teams that you can for surely win, and it would give you credit, like minnesota, washington, virginia or even miss state.

[Enhance]

idk why would you want to play 3 tough teams when that could jeopardize your national championship season when youre conference schedule can get you there. id be ok playing a top 25 team in the non conference, and 3 other quality teams that you can for surely win, and it would give you credit, like minnesota, washington, virginia or even miss state.

This.

 

I do think our non-con for this next year is incredibly weak, but it was the fault of Pederson and not T.O. I think our best non-conference set up by far the last few years was when we played Nevada, Wake Forest, and USC. I'm unaware, however, of exactly who created that schedule for the 2007 team.

 

The whole point of the non-con is so you can get your teams some easy wins but also play at least one good team to make your non-con schedule look better. The one good team is also there so you can better your exposure and national coverage.

[Minnesota_husker]

Washington has it right:

 

2007:

@Syracuse

Boise St.

Ohio St.

@Hawaii

 

2008:

@Oregon

BYU

Oklahoma

 

2009:

LSU

Idaho

@ Notre Dame

 

2010:

@ BYU

Syracuse

Nebraska

@Oregon in 2008 was a conference game not a non-conference game. Washington has been pretty bad in the last few years outside of 2009, so is this really working for them>?

[Pedro Guerrero]

If you make the BCS schools schedule at least 2 other BCS schools for their non-conference schedule then you better make the Non-BCS schools schedule 4 BCS schools for their non-conference schedules because their conference schedules look like the non conference schedules of the BCS schools. In short not gonna happen.

 

 

2011 NU plays Fresno State, @Wyoming and Washington with one game open. There is nothing wrong with that schedule and adding one more guaranteed home win will not hurt it.

 

2012 NU plays @UCLA, Southern Miss with two games open. Go get two home games against the Sun Belt and call this good.

 

2013 NU plays @Southern Miss, UCLA, Wyoming with one game open. Again add one guaranteed home win and call it good.

 

2014 NU plays @Fresno St, Miami with two open games. Schedule two more guaranteed home wins and move on.

 

2015 NU plays Southern Miss, @Miami with two open games. Schedule two more guaranteed home wins and move on.

 

2016 NU plays Fresno St, Tennessee, Wyoming with one open game. Schedule one more guaranteed home win and move on.

 

Besides playing South Dakota St in 2010 what seems to be the problem with the future Non Conference schedules?

[ironmike]

If you make the BCS schools schedule at least 2 other BCS schools for their non-conference schedule then you better make the Non-BCS schools schedule 4 BCS schools for their non-conference schedules because their conference schedules look like the non conference schedules of the BCS schools. In short not gonna happen.

 

 

2011 NU plays Fresno State, @Wyoming and Washington with one game open. There is nothing wrong with that schedule and adding one more guaranteed home win will not hurt it.

 

2012 NU plays @UCLA, Southern Miss with two games open. Go get two home games against the Sun Belt and call this good.

 

2013 NU plays @Southern Miss, UCLA, Wyoming with one game open. Again add one guaranteed home win and call it good.

 

2014 NU plays @Fresno St, Miami with two open games. Schedule two more guaranteed home wins and move on.

 

2015 NU plays Southern Miss, @Miami with two open games. Schedule two more guaranteed home wins and move on.

 

2016 NU plays Fresno St, Tennessee, Wyoming with one open game. Schedule one more guaranteed home win and move on.

 

Besides playing South Dakota St in 2010 what seems to be the problem with the future Non Conference schedules?

 

Exactly. Aside from 2010, the future non-conference schedules are very respectable. I don't have a problem with any of them.

[EbylHusker]

Uh, yeah, our upcoming nonconference schedule is just fine. Not sure which one the OP is looking at, but ok...

 

Also, keep in mind most of those "scrimmage" teams absolutely depend on the money they bring in when they play big name teams and get paid to do it.

[Igetbored216]

What's the point of scheduling hard teams for the non-conference? Sure it may make your team better, but if a BCS conference - specifically the SEC, PAC 10, Big 10, Big 12 - go undefeated, they will most likely be going to the championship game regardless of how "tough" their schedule is.

 

Once it is shown that non-conference SOS does matter, it will change. Until then, I wouldn't expect much to change.

[CornHOLIO]

What with the possible expansions of the B11 and Pac10..I wouldn't mind cutting back on the Non con games and play everybody in your conference...And do away with the CCGs, eliminating the chance for a rematch in a conf. championship game...Then compare the conf. season champs and maybe the runners up with other conferences in the bowls accd to national rankings at the end.

 

So far, this bowl season has been the worst I can remember as far as fan interest..But I'm not ready to pull for a playoff just yet.

[UGAHusker]

What with the possible expansions of the B11 and Pac10..I wouldn't mind cutting back on the Non con games and play everybody in your conference...And do away with the CCGs, eliminating the chance for a rematch in a conf. championship game...Then compare the conf. season champs and maybe the runners up with other conferences in the bowls accd to national rankings at the end.

 

So far, this bowl season has been the worst I can remember as far as fan interest..But I'm not ready to pull for a playoff just yet.

 

Never going to happen. How much money do you think was made with the BIG XII's CCG in "Jerry World"?

[JTrain]

If college football is completely reduced to money and racking up as many cheap wins as possible, then cupcake scheduling is the way to go. And most replies seem to be in favor of that approach. So under that approach, why even schedule a single tough OOC game (VT, Washington, etc.)? Why not play four home games against the Sun Belt and rack up even more money?

 

While money is a necessary part of it, I don't think it should be the only part. People that are saying "it might ruin our national title season if we schedule hard games"... think about what you're saying. If it's a national title season, shouldn't we be capable of playing fairly tough teams? If a game against Iowa or Minnesota or Pitt is really going to ruin our season, than did we deserve to be in the national title picture in the first place? What ever happened to "To be the man you gotta beat the man"?

 

yjW9UXoKU2s

 

Is the saying now reduced to, "To be the man, you gotta maximize revenue and beat Western Kentucky and South Dakota State!"? I mean, if Osborne is committed to fairness, he should seriously consider giving up the revenue of one extra home game to play a respectable opponent on the road. Playing four or five road games and seven or eight home games is not maximizing fairness, or even coming close. The revenue lost from losing a home game isn't going to make or break our athletic program (don't forget we are paying these cupcakes $750,000 to come to Lincoln in the first place). If Nebraska is really "back and here to stay" we should be willing to play a really solid non-conference schedule. AGAIN, I should reiterate since everyone seems to miss this... I don't think we should play Florida, USC, Alabama, etc. every year, but just semi-respectable teams from BCS conferences (or top teams from other conferences: Boise, TCU, BYU, etc.). One cupcake is fine by me, but more than one is pushing it.

 

When we were a perennial top 10 team, we weren't scared to play quality opponents. Remember 94? We played an extra game in the kickoff classic against a very good West Virginia team. We didn't have to play a 12th game (most teams played 11 back then), yet we chose to.

 

Have we really converted to the K-State mentality which we despised and ridiculed for so many years? Play one respectable team and then pay for three wins to maximize revenue. I respect everyone's opinion, but I have to say I vehemently disagree with most of you on this.

[Chucktown Husker]

I would compare the situation to Bob Stoops' comment just after the BCS took out the strength of schedule part of the formula. He said something like "If I can schedule east hankerchief state and still make the national title game, that's what I'll do." Example = Texas non-conference schedule almost every year.

[mmmtodd]

If college football is completely reduced to money and racking up as many cheap wins as possible, then cupcake scheduling is the way to go. And most replies seem to be in favor of that approach. So under that approach, why even schedule a single tough OOC game (VT, Washington, etc.)? Why not play four home games against the Sun Belt and rack up even more money?

 

While money is a necessary part of it, I don't think it should be the only part. People that are saying "it might ruin our national title season if we schedule hard games"... think about what you're saying. If it's a national title season, shouldn't we be capable of playing fairly tough teams? If a game against Iowa or Minnesota or Pitt is really going to ruin our season, than did we deserve to be in the national title picture in the first place? What ever happened to "To be the man you gotta beat the man"?

 

Is the saying now reduced to, "To be the man, you gotta maximize revenue and beat Western Kentucky and South Dakota State!"? I mean, if Osborne is committed to fairness, he should seriously consider giving up the revenue of one extra home game to play a respectable opponent on the road. Playing four or five road games and seven or eight home games is not maximizing fairness, or even coming close. The revenue lost from losing a home game isn't going to make or break our athletic program (don't forget we are paying these cupcakes $750,000 to come to Lincoln in the first place). If Nebraska is really "back and here to stay" we should be willing to play a really solid non-conference schedule. AGAIN, I should reiterate since everyone seems to miss this... I don't think we should play Florida, USC, Alabama, etc. every year, but just semi-respectable teams from BCS conferences (or top teams from other conferences: Boise, TCU, BYU, etc.). One cupcake is fine by me, but more than one is pushing it.

 

When we were a perennial top 10 team, we weren't scared to play quality opponents. Remember 94? We played an extra game in the kickoff classic against a very good West Virginia team. We didn't have to play a 12th game (most teams played 11 back then), yet we chose to.

 

Have we really converted to the K-State mentality which we despised and ridiculed for so many years? Play one respectable team and then pay for three wins to maximize revenue. I respect everyone's opinion, but I have to say I vehemently disagree with most of you on this.

 

Its not so black and white. There has to be a balance. And $750,000 to pay these teams to come to Lincoln is less than 15,000 cheap seats in the stadium. Just seats.

 

Nothing has really changed...that 1994 OOC was @ TTech (remember, they were horrible then), UCLA, Wyoming, and Pacific. Sure, we added the Kickoff classic, but that was before the Big 12 title game ever had an effect on scheduling the number of games.

[REDSTEEL]

If college football is completely reduced to money and racking up as many cheap wins as possible, then cupcake scheduling is the way to go. And most replies seem to be in favor of that approach. So under that approach, why even schedule a single tough OOC game (VT, Washington, etc.)? Why not play four home games against the Sun Belt and rack up even more money?

 

While money is a necessary part of it, I don't think it should be the only part. People that are saying "it might ruin our national title season if we schedule hard games"... think about what you're saying. If it's a national title season, shouldn't we be capable of playing fairly tough teams? If a game against Iowa or Minnesota or Pitt is really going to ruin our season, than did we deserve to be in the national title picture in the first place? What ever happened to "To be the man you gotta beat the man"?

 

yjW9UXoKU2s

 

Is the saying now reduced to, "To be the man, you gotta maximize revenue and beat Western Kentucky and South Dakota State!"? I mean, if Osborne is committed to fairness, he should seriously consider giving up the revenue of one extra home game to play a respectable opponent on the road. Playing four or five road games and seven or eight home games is not maximizing fairness, or even coming close. The revenue lost from losing a home game isn't going to make or break our athletic program (don't forget we are paying these cupcakes $750,000 to come to Lincoln in the first place). If Nebraska is really "back and here to stay" we should be willing to play a really solid non-conference schedule. AGAIN, I should reiterate since everyone seems to miss this... I don't think we should play Florida, USC, Alabama, etc. every year, but just semi-respectable teams from BCS conferences (or top teams from other conferences: Boise, TCU, BYU, etc.). One cupcake is fine by me, but more than one is pushing it.

 

When we were a perennial top 10 team, we weren't scared to play quality opponents. Remember 94? We played an extra game in the kickoff classic against a very good West Virginia team. We didn't have to play a 12th game (most teams played 11 back then), yet we chose to.

 

Have we really converted to the K-State mentality which we despised and ridiculed for so many years? Play one respectable team and then pay for three wins to maximize revenue. I respect everyone's opinion, but I have to say I vehemently disagree with most of you on this.

I'm sure the buisnesses and vendors around Lincoln do not share your view since they would be losing out on 85,000 plus potentional customers that week.