The pathetic state of non-conference scheduling

JTrain

JTrain

All-Conference
I understand parity in college football makes winning in the BCS conferences a lot tougher than it was 15-20 years ago, but I don't think that excuses the complete lack of quality opponents on 90% of the non-conference slates of most BCS schools. Nebraska is a perfect example. We schedule one solid opponent in the non-conference, then pay three schools to come get beat up in Lincoln. What's the point? Does anyone really feel good about paying for three wins every season? The whole idea is absurd to me. But it's not just Nebraska. here's a look at non-conference games this season:

SEC teams played 14 games against BCS, 22 games against non-BCS FBS, and 11 games against FCS.

Big East teams played 14 games against BCS, 12 games against non-BCS FBS, and 10 games against FCS.

Big 10 teams played 11 games against BCS, 20 games against non-BCS FBS, and 9 games against FCS.

Big 12 teams played 11 games against BCS, 27 games against non-BCS FBS, and 9 games against FCS.

Pac-10 teams played 11 games against BCS, 11 games against non-BCS FBS, and 4 games against FCS.

ACC teams played 19 games against BCS, 12 games against non-BCS FBS, and 14 games against FCS.

That means each team is averaging one BCS school per non-conference slate. The ACC is a little better, but they also had more FCS games than anyone. I don't see why every team couldn't schedule at least two games with BCS schools. I'm not sure if the NCAA should or would or could make it a rule, but I'd like to see everyone at least try for that. That doesn't mean everyone has to play the USCs or Floridas or Oklahomas of the world, but at least have a home and home series with someone not in the Sun Belt or MAC. In 2008, Nebraska had four road games! That is really pushing towards ridiculousness. Instead of going after FAU or Western Kentucky or Idaho, why not schedule an actual series with Arkansas or Iowa or Minnesota or Pitt. It's 10 times more exciting for the fans, the games would certainly be winnable, and a series is a lot more fair than paying for one game in Lincoln.

:boxosoap

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree in a way. There should be no playing of FCS schools, period. But to require everyone to play 2 BCS teams, even those already in BCS conferences?...How do non-BCS teams fit into this then? Who are they supposed to play? Like the Boise States, the Utahs, there is not enough to go around, especially when everyone says those teams need to play more BCS schools if they want to be taken seriously?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't have a problem with NU and other BCS conference schools scheduling lower tier non-BCS, just as long as they schedule someone who's going to be in the top 25 to counteract that. But you're right that they shouldn't be playing any FCS teams unless they are top tier (you know the Montanas, Appalachian States, and Richmonds).

Nebraska's schedule next year came about because that would've been the last year on Callahan's contract and Pederson thought he needed some layups to guarantee he got another contract.

But after next year I really don't see a problem with Nebraska's schedule in 2011 and beyond. I know we got a 2 and 1 deals with Fresno State and Wyoming (who's a middle of the road MWC team, the best non-BCS conference). We also have a traditional power on the schedule for at least the next 6 years, no problem there.

 
I've admired Colorado's non-conference schedule the last several years...But if anyone could use a preseason...

(Seems like they start out like lamb and peak around the time they play us and are strong like bull).

 
I just think paying for three wins is embarrassing. It's boring and almost insulting to the fans, who are paying good money to see us beat up on someone as a glorified scrimmage. And it's not even beneficial to the players, they score 50+ and dominate Sun Belt teams, then they face a real team and aren't ready. We played like crap for three quarters of the Missouri game and the entire Texas Tech game. I would bet we would've looked a lot better had we had a little more beef on the non-conference schedule.

Again, I'm not asking us (or anyone) to set up a gauntlet for ourselves with the very best of the best, but some mid-tier teams from the BCS conferences would be nice. Why not a series with North Carolina instead of Idaho? Or Minnesota instead of Western Kentucky? If we're as good as we hope we are under Bo, these games should be very winnable, while still adding to the fairness of the game by playing an actual series (where we travel for a game) and giving our team a better challenge to get them ready for Big 12 play.

I don't mind one Sun Belt/MAC/C-USA a season... maybe two if we absolutely can't find anyone else. But three is not good for anything other than a little extra money. I don't think it's good for the program and certainly not good for the game of college football.

Instead of:

Western Kentucky

Idaho

@Washington

South Dakota St.

How about:

Western Kentucky

@ Rutgers

@ Washington

Iowa

The latter is 100 times more exciting, better for the game, better for national exposure, and more fair, while still giving us a reasonable chance of going 4-0. If we go 3-1, so what? We're more battle tested and ready to go for conference play, and it might help us down the road. Plus we really feel like wins were earned and not bought.

 
i'd like to see better non-cons just as much as anyone, but i'll be building an ark for the next flood before the athletic department makes a habit of giving up a home game year in and year out.

 
We need seven home games/year to pay the bills which is non-negotiable.

More than 80 percent of the total revenues at NU can be tied to football, with football tickets alone providing more than four of every 10 dollars.

2008-09 athletic revenues, in millions

Licensing $2.0

Other revenues $5.3

Boosters and NU Foundation $5.1

Concessions $4.7

Radio rights, signage and sponsorships $10.3

Big 12, NCAA, television $11.9

Other tickets $4.5

Football tickets $31.1

Total $47.9

With 23 sports and an annual budget of $75 million, football largely makes this possible.

Nebraska is one of only a handful of schools nationally whose athletic departments are not only self-supporting, but support academics as well. Each year, the department funds a $2.5 million chancellor’s discretionary fund.

SOURCE: NU ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT

 
Washington has it right:

2007:

@Syracuse

Boise St.

Ohio St.

@Hawaii

2008:

@Oregon

BYU

Oklahoma

2009:

LSU

Idaho

@ Notre Dame

2010:

@ BYU

Syracuse

Nebraska

 
JTrain said:
... Why not a series with North Carolina instead of Idaho? Or Minnesota instead of Western Kentucky? If we're as good as we hope we are under Bo, these games should be very winnable, while still adding to the fairness of the game by playing an actual series (where we travel for a game) and giving our team a better challenge to get them ready for Big 12 play.

I don't mind one Sun Belt/MAC/C-USA a season... maybe two if we absolutely can't find anyone else. But three is not good for anything other than a little extra money. I don't think it's good for the program and certainly not good for the game of college football.

Instead of:

Western Kentucky

Idaho

@Washington

South Dakota St.

How about:

Western Kentucky

@ Rutgers

@ Washington

Iowa

The latter is 100 times more exciting, better for the game, better for national exposure, and more fair, while still giving us a reasonable chance of going 4-0. If we go 3-1, so what? We're more battle tested and ready to go for conference play, and it might help us down the road. Plus we really feel like wins were earned and not bought.
Click to expand...
I used to think this way, but we had more better teams back then.

And I'm not sure about next season, but Idaho would beat North Carolina this (last) season...And I'd love to see them take on Iowa...(In a death-match for the "I-Beam Trophy").

Which reminds me of why they had to cancel the Miss Ebonics Beauty Pageant.

(Nobody wanted to be "Miss I-da-Ho) chuckleshuffle

Once we get back to being perenial top-10..I'd still like to see us schedule one other top- (10-15) team..a couple of mid majors..and maybe one starter with a team desparate for $$$/respectability like FSU back in the mid to late '70's

It would also be great to be able to schedule a team from a "Recruiting State" (FLA,CA,TX,OH) and get a long term rivalry going Like ND/USC..

Imagine the Florida talent we could pull in with a home/Away with UM,UF,FSU, or maybe even the other up and comers from that area...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Im excited for the 2014 schedule with Miami on there, should be interesting, we should schedule Iowa at times too i think every other year or so.

 
JTrain said:
Washington has it right:
Click to expand...
You could say that but what was the state of there program when these schedules were made. They were 5 - 7 this year and win less the year before. It wasn't a stretch for all these other programs to take a leap and schedule UW.
Setting schedules is a guessing game. You can try to stack up your non schedule three years in advance; but if during one of those year you conference schedule has you matched up against all the good teams in the conference there would be an outcry.

I would love to see teams play tough schedule but based on the system in place if you are in a BCS conference there is no need to. By that same token if we ever went to a playoff I don't think non conference schedule would be any tougher because a tough Non Conference lost would be weighted against you the same way as it is in Bracket selection for basketball.

 
NoKoolAidForME said:
JTrain said:
Washington has it right:
Click to expand...
You could say that but what was the state of there program when these schedules were made. They were 5 - 7 this year and win less the year before. It wasn't a stretch for all these other programs to take a leap and schedule UW.
Setting schedules is a guessing game. You can try to stack up your non schedule three years in advance; but if during one of those year you conference schedule has you matched up against all the good teams in the conference there would be an outcry.

I would love to see teams play tough schedule but based on the system in place if you are in a BCS conference there is no need to. By that same token if we ever went to a playoff I don't think non conference schedule would be any tougher because a tough Non Conference lost would be weighted against you the same way as it is in Bracket selection for basketball.
Click to expand...
Like someone stated Steve Pederson scheduled the out of conference game to help Callahans record.

Osborne used to have one easy game then a middle team BCS conference foe and then one good to great team. When he thought he had a great team he would then try to schedule the pre season games like in the coaches kickoff which is no longer around.

To play three tough foes while the K - States of the world play no one make really no sense.

 
It ain't gonna change. All teams are trying to get to a BCS bowl, and if you lose one or 2 games before conference play begins, you've already lost a huge payoff.

Like Deepthroat said in "All the President's Men".... "follow the money"

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