Suggestion on SOS

[Bruleif]

I'd like to see the BCS formula changed so that a school's ranking is based on the number of wins it has each year and that a win over a non-BCS school would not be counted. This would address the tradition that some schools have of repeatedly scheduling creampuffs.

 

IMHO the more quality OOC matchups there are the better it is for college football. Non-conference games with quality opponents are more highly anticipated, by both fans and the media, and they are more fun to watch. It also enables fans to better gauge a team's overall quality earlier in the season.

 

Is this a good idea or not?

[Landlord]

I'd like to see the BCS formula changed so that a school's ranking is based on the number of wins it has each year and that a win over a non-BCS school would not be counted. This would address the tradition that some schools have of repeatedly scheduling creampuffs.

 

IMHO the more quality OOC matchups there are the better it is for college football. Non-conference games with quality opponents are more highly anticipated, by both fans and the media, and they are more fun to watch. It also enables fans to better gauge a team's overall quality earlier in the season.

 

Is this a good idea or not?

 

 

It's a good idea in concept, but it's not practical. With conferences getting bigger and going to 9-game schedules, that takes away one out of conference game. That wouldn't be such a problem, except that schools rely on a certain amount of home games to make money - if one extra game is now guaranteed to rotate home and away, the remaining out-of-conference games really need to almost always be played at home and the better opponents won't agree to come to your place without you going to theirs.

[BOJ]

I have a quick opinion; take for what its worth. Not sure if there are conference rules on this or if it would be a bad thing for the conference, but I'd like to see Nebraska play Oklahoma to end the season. The different Florida schools were playing each other when in different conferences (was three different ones at one point) and yes, I know they played early, but they played all the time (well, a lot anywho). Having Nebraska play in a big game at the end of the season (especially brining back that rivalry) regardless if its in conference is good publicity for the conference and it should help SOS.

 

So in summary, my way to increase SOS argument is Nebraska/Oklahoma at end of season every year. I know it has nothing to do with the OP, but, hey.

[Bruleif]

I'd like to see the BCS formula changed so that a school's ranking is based on the number of wins it has each year and that a win over a non-BCS school would not be counted. This would address the tradition that some schools have of repeatedly scheduling creampuffs.

 

IMHO the more quality OOC matchups there are the better it is for college football. Non-conference games with quality opponents are more highly anticipated, by both fans and the media, and they are more fun to watch. It also enables fans to better gauge a team's overall quality earlier in the season.

 

Is this a good idea or not?

 

 

It's a good idea in concept, but it's not practical. With conferences getting bigger and going to 9-game schedules, that takes away one out of conference game. That wouldn't be such a problem, except that schools rely on a certain amount of home games to make money - if one extra game is now guaranteed to rotate home and away, the remaining out-of-conference games really need to almost always be played at home and the better opponents won't agree to come to your place without you going to theirs.

But I do not see that as a problem. Many schools set up "home and home" OOC games. UCLA has had lots of them in the past decade (Nebraska, Tennessee and Texas come to mind.) I assume that teams which normally sell out their stadiums (Tennessee, Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, etc) lose some money by setting up "home and home" series. But so what? Couldn't the risk of losing money be offset with a formula that would give them a better shot at the NC game if they schedule a tough OOC component and win? And don't schools make the most money when they win the NC?

 

I just don't like the idea that we are rewarding schools for ducking quality teams. Look at some of the SEC and BIG 10 opponents from last year.

 

Let's say Nebraska played Alabama in an early OOC game this upcoming season. And let's say it was a "home and home" series.

Yes, both schools might not make as much money as if they were playing a creampuff. But think of the buzz! Think of the ratings! And think what a great leg up the victor would have in the NC hunt! Instead of September being a relatively ho-hum month, just think of the excitement.

 

I just think that a team should be rewarded for taking risks -- not for avoiding them (a la SEC). Set it up so each school has to play 3 OOC games and then change the math so that a school gets more credit for an "away" victory against a quality OOC opponent.

 

Am I missing something?

[tmfr15]

Nebraska playing Oklahoma to end the season would be intersting. And with the playoff and the lack of a title game in the Big 12, at least for now, I think it becomes a bit more probable. That's the way the post Thanksgiving should go down. NU vs OU on Friday and Mich vs. Ohio State on Saturday.

[Landlord]

I'd like to see the BCS formula changed so that a school's ranking is based on the number of wins it has each year and that a win over a non-BCS school would not be counted. This would address the tradition that some schools have of repeatedly scheduling creampuffs.

 

IMHO the more quality OOC matchups there are the better it is for college football. Non-conference games with quality opponents are more highly anticipated, by both fans and the media, and they are more fun to watch. It also enables fans to better gauge a team's overall quality earlier in the season.

 

Is this a good idea or not?

 

 

It's a good idea in concept, but it's not practical. With conferences getting bigger and going to 9-game schedules, that takes away one out of conference game. That wouldn't be such a problem, except that schools rely on a certain amount of home games to make money - if one extra game is now guaranteed to rotate home and away, the remaining out-of-conference games really need to almost always be played at home and the better opponents won't agree to come to your place without you going to theirs.

But I do not see that as a problem. Many schools set up "home and home" OOC games. UCLA has had lots of them in the past decade (Nebraska, Tennessee and Texas come to mind.) I assume that teams which normally sell out their stadiums (Tennessee, Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, etc) lose some money by setting up "home and home" series. But so what? Couldn't the risk of losing money be offset with a formula that would give them a better shot at the NC game if they schedule a tough OOC component and win? And don't schools make the most money when they win the NC?

 

I just don't like the idea that we are rewarding schools for ducking quality teams. Look at some of the SEC and BIG 10 opponents from last year.

 

Let's say Nebraska played Alabama in an early OOC game this upcoming season. And let's say it was a "home and home" series.

Yes, both schools might not make as much money as if they were playing a creampuff. But think of the buzz! Think of the ratings! And think what a great leg up the victor would have in the NC hunt! Instead of September being a relatively ho-hum month, just think of the excitement.

 

I just think that a team should be rewarded for taking risks -- not for avoiding them (a la SEC). Set it up so each school has to play 3 OOC games and then change the math so that a school gets more credit for an "away" victory against a quality OOC opponent.

 

Am I missing something?

 

 

 

This whole thing is just far too complicated. Firstly, the basis of your argument is that schools should give up guaranteed money in-pocket in exchange for a chance (a very small one at that) that they might get more money by playing for the national championship game. Sorry, no athletic department is going to do this. We're talking well over $1 million in lost revenue having one less home game.

 

Also, not sure how you can justify the SEC avoiding risks. Alabama kicked off the season against Michigan last year, and LSU against Oregon the year before that. Yeah, they schedule FCS schools, but so do we.

[NUinID]

I'd like to see the BCS formula changed so that a school's ranking is based on the number of wins it has each year and that a win over a non-BCS school would not be counted. This would address the tradition that some schools have of repeatedly scheduling creampuffs.

 

IMHO the more quality OOC matchups there are the better it is for college football. Non-conference games with quality opponents are more highly anticipated, by both fans and the media, and they are more fun to watch. It also enables fans to better gauge a team's overall quality earlier in the season.

 

Is this a good idea or not?

 

 

It's a good idea in concept, but it's not practical. With conferences getting bigger and going to 9-game schedules, that takes away one out of conference game. That wouldn't be such a problem, except that schools rely on a certain amount of home games to make money - if one extra game is now guaranteed to rotate home and away, the remaining out-of-conference games really need to almost always be played at home and the better opponents won't agree to come to your place without you going to theirs.

But I do not see that as a problem. Many schools set up "home and home" OOC games. UCLA has had lots of them in the past decade (Nebraska, Tennessee and Texas come to mind.) I assume that teams which normally sell out their stadiums (Tennessee, Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, etc) lose some money by setting up "home and home" series. But so what? Couldn't the risk of losing money be offset with a formula that would give them a better shot at the NC game if they schedule a tough OOC component and win? And don't schools make the most money when they win the NC?

 

I just don't like the idea that we are rewarding schools for ducking quality teams. Look at some of the SEC and BIG 10 opponents from last year.

 

Let's say Nebraska played Alabama in an early OOC game this upcoming season. And let's say it was a "home and home" series.

Yes, both schools might not make as much money as if they were playing a creampuff. But think of the buzz! Think of the ratings! And think what a great leg up the victor would have in the NC hunt! Instead of September being a relatively ho-hum month, just think of the excitement.

 

I just think that a team should be rewarded for taking risks -- not for avoiding them (a la SEC). Set it up so each school has to play 3 OOC games and then change the math so that a school gets more credit for an "away" victory against a quality OOC opponent.

 

Am I missing something?

I get your point and all, but you left out the Pac 12 when discussing weak OOC schedules. Hawaii, Nicholls St. Northern Arizona, and E. Washington are 4 Pac 12 opponents this first week of college football. The Pac 12 does it too. No one is going to say that New Mexico St. is a football power either are they?

[StPaulHusker]

I have always held the belief that a FBS school should never play a FCS school. And if they did play and won, it should not count towards wins for Bowl eligibility. And if they lost it should count against bowl eligibility.

 

I also thought that the "need a 7th home game for budget reasons" excuse is lame. Teams should play 6 home and 6 road games. If you can't make it on that, go play intramurals, brotha.

 

I think it would be cool if all major conferences went to 9 game schedules and the 3 non-conference games were in a computer generated random draw among all the other major conferences. That would give you as close to a true indicator of the strongest teams in the country

[Landlord]

And if they did play and won, it should not count towards wins for Bowl eligibility.

 

 

It doesn't.

[StPaulHusker]

And if they did play and won, it should not count towards wins for Bowl eligibility.

 

 

It doesn't.

Right now it does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowl_eligibility

[RedDenver]

Since this is the last year of the BCS and formulas, it doesn't really matter. Next year we get a committee deciding these things.

[Landlord]

And if they did play and won, it should not count towards wins for Bowl eligibility.

 

 

It doesn't.

Right now it does.

http://en.wikipedia....owl_eligibility

 

 

Ahh, my mistake. I remembered in 2009 I think when Kansas State had enough wins, but two of them were against FCS opponents and only one could count towards eligibility. I remembered it wrong as they couldn't count period.

[BOJ]

Back on my OU/Nebraska to end the regular season kick (which I still think would be fantastic), I believe Clemson and South Carolina do a regular season ender, so there is some precedent for OOC season enders for a rival game. Need to get some movement behind this

[corncraze]

Back on my OU/Nebraska to end the regular season kick (which I still think would be fantastic), I believe Clemson and South Carolina do a regular season ender, so there is some precedent for OOC season enders for a rival game. Need to get some movement behind this

I would LOVE this, but I doubt Oklahoma would ever do it. Texas is their big rivalry now and basically has been since the formation of the Big 12.

[BOJ]

Back on my OU/Nebraska to end the regular season kick (which I still think would be fantastic), I believe Clemson and South Carolina do a regular season ender, so there is some precedent for OOC season enders for a rival game. Need to get some movement behind this

I would LOVE this, but I doubt Oklahoma would ever do it. Texas is their big rivalry now and basically has been since the formation of the Big 12.

So while we are moving to make this happen we need to get Texas and A&M back on speaking terms so they do an annual OOC game, then Oklahoma will feel a little shunned as its big strong boyfriend flirts with the uglier, heavier girl--leaving its damaged ego ripe for the negotiating taking.