9 games in the B10?

[Enhance]

Hopefully it doesn't interfere with upcoming games against UCLA, Miami or Tennessee.

 

I'd be willing to bet those games are pretty safe, since they are decent programs.

 

Sounds good to me. Scrap our first game opponents. They are worthless anyway. "Yeah, we won 70 to 7 against a high school team, lets go celebrate" :thumbsdown

 

Yeah. I like to win as much as the next guy, but I have a bit more satisfaction beat Washington than Western Kentucky. I guess those kinds of games are useful, but more for evaluation purposes.

 

 

Personally, I've always been one who's wanted a tougher non conference schedule. The D2 schools and the bottom of the barrel D1 schools we play in the beginning won't prepare you as much for the tougher games down the road.

I think one tough non-conference opponent is about as much as a top tier program like ourselves should do. Playing several tough or even semi-tough opponents in the non-conference is not a good idea when you consider the type of conference we played in/play in. Lower tier programs need tougher schedules to bolster their resumes, but we get a bolster just because of the conferences we play in.

 

Last year's non-conference wasn't good. I don't know when the Washington home and home was scheduled but I assume it was scheduled with the idea in mind that Washington would be a better program by now. Clearly they're not so it leaves us in a precarious position.

 

That said, I think the South Dakota State's and Chattanooga's of the world have absolutely no place on our schedule, but I don't think this athletic department put together most of these non-conference games we have now. At worst we should play the FAU's and WKU's followed by a top ten opponent.

[corncraze]

I know this wouldn't be a popular idea here but I wouldn't mind seeing Ohio State as our 2nd protected crossover game in the future. In that scenario put Michigan-Penn State as another protected crossover game and you'd have the 4 Blue Blood football schools playing each other every year. TV execs would especially benefit from this since they can place a premium on advertising dollars for those specific games. While it'd be a daunting schedule, it could also prove beneficial from a strength of schedule standpoint. Hence a 1-loss Big Ten team could still contend for an MNC the same way a 1-loss SEC team could.

 

Wisconsin-Iowa

Penn State-Michigan State

Ohio State-Nebraska

Illinois-Michigan

Indiana-Northwestern

Purdue-Minnesota?

 

I did the same thing to Purdue that happened in the first set of crossover games. Put everyone else's logical games first and they got stuck with someone that doesn't make sense. Maybe that does happen again given that they are the only team with all of their major historical rivals already in their division. The ones I see as guaranteed are Illinois-Michigan and Wisconsin-Iowa. Penn State and Michigan State were a contrived rivalry since Penn State needed 2 teams that didn't rotate off and they couldn't have both Michigan and Ohio State but I don't see Penn State making any more sense with Minnesota than Purdue does so they would probably go ahead and renew that trophy game. The only teams that make sense for Nebraska are Wisconin and Ohio State but since they will certainly re-instate the Wisky/Iowa game that pretty much leaves Nebraska with Ohio State by default. I suppose you could flip Northwestern and Minnesota since they are both playing a team from Indiana. Not sure where there might be more of a historical significance amonng those 4 teams.

Dear Lord that would be suicide for the Huskers! OSU, Penn St., Mich, Iowa, and MSU every year and this is not including the B1G championship! I'd say either Illinois or Purdue would be reasonable for the Huskers to have as a second crossover.

[walksalone]

I think one tough non-conference opponent is about as much as a top tier program like ourselves should do. Playing several tough or even semi-tough opponents in the non-conference is not a good idea when you consider the type of conference we played in/play in. Lower tier programs need tougher schedules to bolster their resumes, but we get a bolster just because of the conferences we play in.

 

Last year's non-conference wasn't good. I don't know when the Washington home and home was scheduled but I assume it was scheduled with the idea in mind that Washington would be a better program by now. Clearly they're not so it leaves us in a precarious position.

 

That said, I think the South Dakota State's and Chattanooga's of the world have absolutely no place on our schedule, but I don't think this athletic department put together most of these non-conference games we have now. At worst we should play the FAU's and WKU's followed by a top ten opponent.

 

I'm not saying that we play Alabama, Oregon, and Boise St consecutively.

 

If, for example, they were to schedule something like Boston College, Tennesee, UCLA, that would at least be more respectable than Western Kentucky and South Dakota St.

[Enhance]

I think one tough non-conference opponent is about as much as a top tier program like ourselves should do. Playing several tough or even semi-tough opponents in the non-conference is not a good idea when you consider the type of conference we played in/play in. Lower tier programs need tougher schedules to bolster their resumes, but we get a bolster just because of the conferences we play in.

 

Last year's non-conference wasn't good. I don't know when the Washington home and home was scheduled but I assume it was scheduled with the idea in mind that Washington would be a better program by now. Clearly they're not so it leaves us in a precarious position.

 

That said, I think the South Dakota State's and Chattanooga's of the world have absolutely no place on our schedule, but I don't think this athletic department put together most of these non-conference games we have now. At worst we should play the FAU's and WKU's followed by a top ten opponent.

 

I'm not saying that we play Alabama, Oregon, and Boise St consecutively.

 

If, for example, they were to schedule something like Boston College, Tennesee, UCLA, that would at least be more respectable than Western Kentucky and South Dakota St.

That's very true, but that type of schedule doesn't really bode well for a successful season. All three of those teams have had a lot of success in the past and it's possible could all be Top 25 opponents if we scheduled them in one season. The AD purposefully creates the schedule to make it easy but include one game against an important opponent. Besides, if the teams we play in our conference are as good as advertised, that's all the schedule-boosting we'll need. Those three teams you mentioned wouldn't be push overs and you could easily wear a team out earlier than you'd hope for.

 

As painful as games against weak opponents are, I think most people view it as a necessity for making a road to the unbeatens possible. A playoff system would lessen the need for an unbeaten season, but for the next few years it's more than likely going to be a requirement to make it to the championship game. Scheduling a tough non-conference in our position is dangerous business. Right now, those three teams you mentioned are maybe top 40, but by the time they were actually put on the schedule they could all be Top 20. Very dangerous imho if you want to try and remain unbeaten. Then again, a playoff system would probably be implemented by the time we had all three of them on the schedule so it wouldn't matter near as much.

 

Anywho, back to the point. It's safer and smarter to schedule easy in the non-con when you're in a power conference.

[walksalone]

That's very true, but that type of schedule doesn't really bode well for a successful season. All three of those teams have had a lot of success in the past and it's possible could all be Top 25 opponents if we scheduled them in one season. The AD purposefully creates the schedule to make it easy but include one game against an important opponent. Besides, if the teams we play in our conference are as good as advertised, that's all the schedule-boosting we'll need. Those three teams you mentioned wouldn't be push overs and you could easily wear a team out earlier than you'd hope for.

 

As painful as games against weak opponents are, I think most people view it as a necessity for making a road to the unbeatens possible. A playoff system would lessen the need for an unbeaten season, but for the next few years it's more than likely going to be a requirement to make it to the championship game. Scheduling a tough non-conference in our position is dangerous business. Right now, those three teams you mentioned are maybe top 40, but by the time they were actually put on the schedule they could all be Top 20. Very dangerous imho if you want to try and remain unbeaten. Then again, a playoff system would probably be implemented by the time we had all three of them on the schedule so it wouldn't matter near as much.

 

Anywho, back to the point. It's safer and smarter to schedule easy in the non-con when you're in a power conference.

 

Well, ok, maybe I took that a bit too far. But what if you had two of the three be fairly solid teams, and the one cream puff. Since we're not going to see a playoffs anytime soon, that extra solid non conference game would help us with the whole SOS for the BCS picture.

 

But this leads to another question, will the NCAA shoot to make this mandatory for all conferences? I think at some point they'd want some semblance of uniformity. If they are going the playoff route, to get to that playoffs, wouldn't they want as much consistancy as possible?

[Enhance]

That's very true, but that type of schedule doesn't really bode well for a successful season. All three of those teams have had a lot of success in the past and it's possible could all be Top 25 opponents if we scheduled them in one season. The AD purposefully creates the schedule to make it easy but include one game against an important opponent. Besides, if the teams we play in our conference are as good as advertised, that's all the schedule-boosting we'll need. Those three teams you mentioned wouldn't be push overs and you could easily wear a team out earlier than you'd hope for.

 

As painful as games against weak opponents are, I think most people view it as a necessity for making a road to the unbeatens possible. A playoff system would lessen the need for an unbeaten season, but for the next few years it's more than likely going to be a requirement to make it to the championship game. Scheduling a tough non-conference in our position is dangerous business. Right now, those three teams you mentioned are maybe top 40, but by the time they were actually put on the schedule they could all be Top 20. Very dangerous imho if you want to try and remain unbeaten. Then again, a playoff system would probably be implemented by the time we had all three of them on the schedule so it wouldn't matter near as much.

 

Anywho, back to the point. It's safer and smarter to schedule easy in the non-con when you're in a power conference.

 

Well, ok, maybe I took that a bit too far. But what if you had two of the three be fairly solid teams, and the one cream puff. Since we're not going to see a playoffs anytime soon, that extra solid non conference game would help us with the whole SOS for the BCS picture.

Well the only issue with this is something I hinted to but did not directly say in my previous post. You know as well as I do that scheduling is done years in advance. Huskers.com has scheduled teams in 2017 already if I'm not mistaken. Therefore by the time we could presumably schedule a tougher non conference, I'm 99.9% sure we'll have some sort of playoff system implemented. I think by the time the contract with ESPN is over with in five years or so we'll have some sort of playoff system implemented.

But this leads to another question, will the NCAA shoot to make this mandatory for all conferences? I think at some point they'd want some semblance of uniformity. If they are going the playoff route, to get to that playoffs, wouldn't they want as much consistancy as possible?

This is a very good question because it conflicts with the point I raised above. Forcing teams to schedule uniformly would get messy because several have already been schedule for the next 5-8 years. You'd have to scrap and re-work those schedules, something I just don't see happening.

 

When a playoff system is implemented, I'm positive it will be heavily weighted on what you do in the conference more so than what you do in the non-con. College basketball isn't forced to schedule uniformly in the non-con if I'm not mistaken. I'm sure teams can continue to schedule any kind of non-con they want because making the playoffs will depend on your overall season and what you did in the conference, more than likely.

[walksalone]

Well the only issue with this is something I hinted to but did not directly say in my previous post. You know as well as I do that scheduling is done years in advance. Huskers.com has scheduled teams in 2017 already if I'm not mistaken. Therefore by the time we could presumably schedule a tougher non conference, I'm 99.9% sure we'll have some sort of playoff system implemented. I think by the time the contract with ESPN is over with in five years or so we'll have some sort of playoff system implemented.

 

Well, if you look 3 or 4 years out, there's generally only one team scheduled, and that team is of a stronger nature. From what i've noticed we're not scheduling the New Mexico St's, Akron's, or the North Texas's but more the Tenn, UCLA's. We could get pick up a game that's in the middle between a possible top 25 team or the bottom feeders of D1.

 

This is a very good question because it conflicts with the point I raised above. Forcing teams to schedule uniformly would get messy because several have already been schedule for the next 5-8 years. You'd have to scrap and re-work those schedules, something I just don't see happening.

 

When a playoff system is implemented, I'm positive it will be heavily weighted on what you do in the conference more so than what you do in the non-con. College basketball isn't forced to schedule uniformly in the non-con if I'm not mistaken. I'm sure teams can continue to schedule any kind of non-con they want because making the playoffs will depend on your overall season and what you did in the conference, more than likely.

 

 

But with the playoff system relying more heavily upon what you do in conference, then this leads me to this. There are going to be teams that play 8 conference games, and those that play 9. Hypothetically say you've got a team in a strong conference with an 8-1 conf record and a team with an 8-0 conf record from a weaker conference. Which team is going to get a higher seed, or in the case of say two teams that are on the bubble, which one is going to make it in. This asks more questions than it answers, in my opinion.

[Enhance]

Well, if you look 3 or 4 years out, there's generally only one team scheduled, and that team is of a stronger nature. From what i've noticed we're not scheduling the New Mexico St's, Akron's, or the North Texas's but more the Tenn, UCLA's. We could get pick up a game that's in the middle between a possible top 25 team or the bottom feeders of D1.

Theoretically speaking we could. But since most of those "big games" are scheduled years in advance it's possible several of those teams already have a big non-con opponent.

 

Which then leads us to the overwhelming issue we've been discussing - most teams in top tier conferences don't want more than one tough non-con game. Nebraska isn't the only team that schedules things this way, as I'm sure you know. It's just the way things seem to be done now and I doubt anybody will want to toughen their non-con and make their path to a championship more difficult.

 

But with the playoff system relying more heavily upon what you do in conference, then this leads me to this. There are going to be teams that play 8 conference games, and those that play 9. Hypothetically say you've got a team in a strong conference with an 8-1 conf record and a team with an 8-0 conf record from a weaker conference. Which team is going to get a higher seed, or in the case of say two teams that are on the bubble, which one is going to make it in. This asks more questions than it answers, in my opinion.

This scenario is similar to the issues we already face in the BCS like who deserves to go a championship more, an undefeated Boise State team or 1 loss Alabama team?

 

I'm sure with the playoffs will come some type of playoff committee responsible for seeding and choosing the teams based on certain criteria. They might allow the winners of the six AQ conferences automatic berths, two conference winners from non-AQ conferences and then maybe some wildcard choices. I don't know exactly how it will work out but I bet you it will be conducted similar to what college basketball does - a committee that uses certain criteria but also opinions to judge what teams get in and what seeds they are.

[SaturnDrew]

One thing about having 9 games in the Big 10 is that the chances of having a rematch in the CCG increase. I'm not a big fan of rematches in college football, and would rather see that extra slot for a quality nonconference opponent. On the other hand though, 10 teams won't be playing in the CCG, but knowing it's the 2nd time the teams match up always takes a bit of the luster out of the game (see Washington 2010).

[The Dude]

Deleted, wrong thread.

[walksalone]

Theoretically speaking we could. But since most of those "big games" are scheduled years in advance it's possible several of those teams already have a big non-con opponent.

 

Which then leads us to the overwhelming issue we've been discussing - most teams in top tier conferences don't want more than one tough non-con game. Nebraska isn't the only team that schedules things this way, as I'm sure you know. It's just the way things seem to be done now and I doubt anybody will want to toughen their non-con and make their path to a championship more difficult.

 

But there are a few teams that schedule a couple tough non-con games. I'd rather play a one solid non-con game, a middle of the road non-con game, and then the proverbial cream puff. Will it happen, I really doubt it.

 

This scenario is similar to the issues we already face in the BCS like who deserves to go a championship more, an undefeated Boise State team or 1 loss Alabama team?

 

I'm sure with the playoffs will come some type of playoff committee responsible for seeding and choosing the teams based on certain criteria. They might allow the winners of the six AQ conferences automatic berths, two conference winners from non-AQ conferences and then maybe some wildcard choices. I don't know exactly how it will work out but I bet you it will be conducted similar to what college basketball does - a committee that uses certain criteria but also opinions to judge what teams get in and what seeds they are.

 

Thats true, and thats going to be an arguement that will continue on, until there is a more definitive process of selection. Or, until we develop the four "super conferences" and have a playoff.

 

But you know that playoffs are a long way off. I think more than one conference may try to shoot that down due to the fact that they like their system thats currently in place. Its guaranteed that a team from either the SEC, Big 1G, Big XII, or the Pac 10 will be represented. Those four are the "1a" conferences, and the Big East and ACC are the "1b" coneferences. As long as the current system is in place, I'd eat my hat if I saw a nat'l title game between Florida State and BYU. The way it is, the four "big boy" conferences are going to get more recognition than the rest of the bunch.

[BIG ERN]

Too many conference games. People like to see top teams play other conference's top teams.

[Nebula]

Wisconsin or Ohio State on top of Penn State every year?!

 

 

Gimme Indiana!

[krill]

Too many conference games. People like to see top teams play other conference's top teams.

 

We only schedule 1 "decent" non-con game...looking down the road it's the other half of Washington, 2 with UCLA, 2 with Miami and 2 with Tennessee.

 

The only problem I see with 9 conference games is how everyone gets their non-con home & home's lined up so they can still have 7 home games in the years with 4 home conference games. TO has said in the past the athletic department needs the revenue from 7 home games and season ticket holders have come to expect that number too. Might work but it does weaken the non-con schedule since you could only schedule 1 home & home, the other two have to be the one year paid to come play here variety.

 

Personally I like the idea of 9 conference games. Sick of this crap where every team is angling for the weakest possible non-conference schedules to assure bowl games even when they have terrible years. If we ever get a playoff that's seeded by conference champions it will just make the B10 a stronger field.

[Scratchtown]

In my opinion, the more conference games you play, and less games against CHATTANOOGA, SDSU, etc...I think that would settle a playoff debate. Well for me it would.