Schedule, Osborne, Pete Carroll

One thing I would love for the Huskers to do regarding scheduling is develop a non-conference game with a big-name team where we play each other every year. It could be a regional team, like Iowa (mentioned above) or a team we have a history with like Florida State or Miami.

 
Keep in mind again.....these non conference games are not scheduled 2 or three years in advance. Sometimes one is thrown in around that time frame but some of these are 5 plus years in advance. Sure, most good teams will not waver back and forth that much. But how will you ever know if certain teams go to the crapper and others rise up to be much much better than they were. There is no way of knowing that.

 
huskersurfer said:
Did anyone else listen to Colin Cowherd's radio show this morning and he interviewed Pete Carroll and they were talking about schedules. Cowherd was ragging on Ohio States out of conference schedule again and talking about how USC doesn't play week teams.

get top schools, but we don't always need to get the LSU, or USC's. I think that other schools like USC have done a better job at scheduling and that as fans we should put more pressure on the University to add better teams.
Click to expand...

Well, they did play Idaho. Anyway..starting in 2011 our nonconference schedule includes teams like Washington, UCLA and Tennessee. So it's getting a bit better.

 
ironmike said:
One thing I would love for the Huskers to do regarding scheduling is develop a non-conference game with a big-name team where we play each other every year. It could be a regional team, like Iowa (mentioned above) or a team we have a history with like Florida State or Miami.
Click to expand...
I just have trouble getting excited about playing Iowa...Doesn't Iowa State usually take care of them for us?

I'd like to see us schedule teams that give us more exposure to recruits..Like if we want to get more recruits from Florida, start scheduling the Fla. Schools..Some guys like to get away from home, but still would like their family to be able to see one of their games.

I'd also like to see us play Michigan and Penn State durring the season just because of the shared MNC's

Since My Wife graduated from tOSU..I'd like to see how our Marriage could handle having a game against the Butteyes. :clap

 
Something to keep in mind about scheduling is that they do this 3 or 4 years out don't they?....sometimes its hard to tell if a team will still be good or bad when that 3-4 years comes along. USC was not a dominant powerhouse that they are today when we first put them on the schedule years ago for the 2006-2007 seasons.

You can take a good stab at some teams but who knows...I'm sure we didn't think Virginia Tech was going to be Top 10 material when we scheduled them a few years back.

 
TO could beef up his team's depth with game experience during the softer non-conference games. But so did Florida State and Miami and Penn State and all the dominant teams of the 90s.

As a Husker fan, and aside from the technical aspect of it, I would be more excited to see NU play three strong non-conference games every year.

 
Another factor is ticket sales. At Nebraska, the stadium would sell out if we played Millard North. Can't beat an easy win plus $$$. Colorado has said they try to get big name schools so they can get a crowd. USC would probably have a similar problem in years they weren't championship contenders. Too much other stuff to do in SoCal.

 
Regardless of the schedule, the key is to win your games. If you keep winning, the polls/BCS takes care of itself.

I think that scheduling teams that would be ranked in the 25-40 area would be sufficient. One cupcake never hurt anyone (except Michigan, of course).

 
I agree with the Iowa idea considering I live in Des Moines and hear nothing, but grief from Iowa fans. They like to claim the only reason we scheduled them at that time is because they were down, but they tend to forget that the schedule is made a few years in advance. I would love to kick the Hawkeyes a$$ for a few years. :thumbs

 
I say make all the conferences expand to 12 teams so that they each have 2 divisions of 6, have 8 conferences...take the 8 winners of the conferences and put them in a tourniment...single elimination...that would take care of all this.

 
huskersurfer said:
Here you go USC 2006

<el-snipperoni>
Click to expand...
OK, so USC barely fits your criteria (and I mean, barely). What about the other top ten schools in that span?

I totally get that you want a tougher non-conference schedule. I want every fan in the stadium to get a free runza every game. Neither is realistic, but only one of us is going on and on about getting that change made.

 
HUSKER 37 said:
I guess this is why I feel it was a mistake when the BCS stopped taking SOS (Strength Of Schedule) into consideration...Bringing it back would probably help things. (That, or not counting pre-season games like the NFL).
Click to expand...
Could you clarify? As far as I know, the computer rankings are based on strength of schedule, the win-loss records of the teams you play, and the win-loss records of the teams those teams have played. One of the reasons I don't mind the BCS so much is the objective way in which it measures strength of schedule. The reason Misery and WV are ahead of Ohio St. is SOS. Plus, those who vote in the polls take SOS into account.

 
I think the NCAA should scrap the current scheduling process. Instead of the individual universities doing their own out of conference scheduling 5 or 10 years out, the NCAA would do it. This way, they could develop a formula that would assure every major conference team played at least two OOC games against teams from the major conference and then the other games could be against non-BCS conference schools. The schedules could be done in two-year blocks, assuring a home-and-home series.

The universities could appeal for specific opponents or for traditional matchups (like Notre Dame-USC or Clemson-South Carolina) that they want to continue, but this would eliminate the four cupcake OOC schedule that has become popular among rebuilding programs.

The conferences would continue to handle their own conference schedules, but a new system would help eliminate some of these 'they didn't play anyone' debates.

Ohio State shouldn't be playing Akron every year. They should be playing teams like Oregon, Tennessee, Virginia Tech and other perennial upper-tier teams from the other conferences.

 
A little history on your idea of a Nebraska/Iowa series.

Nebraska has played Iowa 6 times during non-conference schedule games. Apparently they had a four year deal 1979-1982 and another two year contract for 1999-2000.

Nebraska came out 5-1 during that series outscoring Iowa 214 to 58.

1979 - NU 24 - Iowa 21

1980 - NU 57 - Iowa 0

1981 - NU 7 - Iowa 10

1982 - NU 42 - Iowa 7

1999 - NU 42 - Iowa 7

2000 - NU 42 - Iowa 13

While you might think a Nebraska/Iowa series would be a good deal, I'm sure you'll find that most of Hawkeye Nation will disagree with you for obvious reasons, the first and foremost being that they have to use those non-conference games to rack up some easy wins over football powerhouses like Akron and Northwest Missouri State if they hope to scrape over the ridiculously low 6-6 benchmark of Bowl eligibility.

 
Cy the Cyclone said:
A little history on your idea of a Nebraska/Iowa series.

Nebraska has played Iowa 6 times during non-conference schedule games. Apparently they had a four year deal 1979-1982 and another two year contract for 1999-2000.

Nebraska came out 5-1 during that series outscoring Iowa 214 to 58.
Click to expand...
The funniest thing about that last series was that Iowa was actually pretty decent in 2002-2004, and probably would have trounced us if we had played.

Timing is everything! :thumbs

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top