Fox Sports

Since the writer eliminated an entire BCS conference that actually won more BCS bowls than conferences such as the ACC it completely renders the entire article useless.

You can't say schools didn't face P5 opponents when there was no P5, nor can you eliminate schools that teams played from what was then a P6 conference (that didn't finish as low as 6th every year) in the Big East.

Its a meaningless article based on that.

Point? P5's can still play 2 G5's and an FCS school in there other 3 OOC games, even if one of those games is assigned to an OOC P5 school.

It is going to make it harder for the middling P5's to become bowl eligible though. Getting tough to have your cake and eat it too.

(05-30-2014 11:43 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Fox Sports

In a word, no.

Short answer is that any effect will be too small to be significant. In theory, ACC and SEC teams who might have previously scheduled one of the best G5 programs for one of their non-con games will replace that with their required P5 game. Coaches being coaches, they will look for the easiest route to where they want to go, so P5 coaches are not going to take struggling G5 opponents off their schedule; they'll keep those teams and avoid the best G5 teams if it comes to that.

But it's a very small effect because the effect comes from the minority of schools in the SEC and ACC that were making P5-free non-con schedules regularly. That's why the new policy was agreed to so easily -- they were agreeing to do something that two-thirds of the teams were doing already.

Was just listening to ESPN radio and one of the analyst was saying the BXII doesn't want to be forced to play an SEC school in OOC play. Alabama has to play somebody and nobody wants to be 'forced' to play them.

Clearly the writer thought that writing a mess of anecdote would be more interesting as infotainment than stepping through the conferences and seeing how they presently do things ... but all up, the Big Ten going to 9 conference games in 2016 looks like it will have as much or more impact as P5 requirements.

In 2014, who would have to change to meet an "at least one P5 OOC" rule? If I haven't missed one:
In the ACC, its NC State and Wake Forest.
In the Big Ten, its Penn State.
In the Big 12, its Baylor.
In the Pac-12, its Colorado, Oregon State and Arizona
In the SEC, its Ole Miss, Miss St., Vandy and Texas A&M.

And some of those are exceptional circumstances ~ for instance, Vandy & Wake Forest is due to a forced reschedule of the game they were originally contracted to play against each other.

So it would basically be 8-10 Go5 or FCS games replaced by 4-5 P5/P5 contests (and, one would presume, 4-5 games with Go5/Go5, Go5/FCS or FCS/FCS).

Since the Big Ten going to 9 conference games takes around 10-12 games out of the mix (since the extra Big Ten game would normally replace a P5 game in schedules that presently include two P5 schools), that one change has the impact than we would see from every P5 conference adopting an "at least one P5 OOC" rule. With the Big Ten also encouraging its members to not schedule FCS schools, most of the impact of that shift falls on the FCS schools, with the net increase in P5 games both in and out of conference of with 10-12 games pretty much matching the 10-12 FCS games that will be gradually phased out as existing contracts play out.

(05-30-2014 02:03 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Clearly the writer thought that writing a mess of anecdote would be more interesting as infotainment than stepping through the conferences and seeing how they presently do things ... but all up, the Big Ten going to 9 conference games in 2016 looks like it will have as much or more impact as P5 requirements.

In 2014, who would have to change to meet an "at least one P5 OOC" rule? If I haven't missed one:
In the ACC, its NC State and Wake Forest.
In the Big Ten, its Penn State.
In the Big 12, its Baylor.
In the Pac-12, its Colorado, Oregon State and Arizona
In the SEC, its Ole Miss, Miss St., Vandy and Texas A&M.

And some of those are exceptional circumstances ~ for instance, Vandy & Wake Forest is due to a forced reschedule of the game they were originally contracted to play against each other.

So it would basically be 8-10 Go5 or FCS games replaced by 4-5 P5/P5 contests (and, one would presume, 4-5 games with Go5/Go5, Go5/FCS or FCS/FCS).

Since the Big Ten going to 9 conference games takes around 10-12 games out of the mix (since the extra Big Ten game would normally replace a P5 game in schedules that presently include two P5 schools), that one change has the impact than we would see from every P5 conference adopting an "at least one P5 OOC" rule. With the Big Ten also encouraging its members to not schedule FCS schools, most of the impact of that shift falls on the FCS schools, with the net increase in P5 games both in and out of conference of with 10-12 games pretty much matching the 10-12 FCS games that will be gradually phased out as existing contracts play out.

I think it will be interesting to see what will happen to schools that don't live up to their conference "rule" about scheduling P5s. Just how hard would the ACC come down on Wake Forest, for example? Would they kick them out? Personally, I doubt it.

(05-30-2014 02:03 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Since the Big Ten going to 9 conference games takes around 10-12 games out of the mix (since the extra Big Ten game would normally replace a P5 game in schedules that presently include two P5 schools), that one change has the impact than we would see from every P5 conference adopting an "at least one P5 OOC" rule.

I'm not sure about that. Michigan State, for example, is not cancelling series with MAC opponents to accommodate a 9-game conference schedule. They're ending their series with Notre Dame.

Anyone who has taken a little math knows that combining pairs within a finite universe works very easily until you get down to the last handful, then it can become complicated. The two ACC schools in 2014 without a P-5 had that happen to them because Oklahoma State cancelled a series with NC State when the B12 went to 9 games. WF lost ND this year to help ND with a scheduling issue with Purdue.

Anyone who does the research will find that it's really only a small handful of P-5 schools that have tended to avoid playing OOC peers. NC State for example used to play Pitt, Louisville, Syracuse, UCF, and USF while the Big East existed. Now, those schools are in the ACC or the AAC and don't count. Wake is not going to have a problem because they will be viewed as a easy win by a larger P-5. The P-5 with problems will be those in the 4th quintile of the 65 - those that have average programs, but could beat you. The present the least reward for the risk to the upper half of the P-5.

Let's say for the sake of argument that we leave ND out and look at 64 schools. First try to make 32 OOC home and home games taking into account the SEC/ACC/B10 have 14 teams, and the P12 has 12 and the B10 just 10. Then attempt to do it without creating uninteresting, useless matchups pairing teams who don't recruit in each other's area and whom no one really cares about.

Who cares if Rutgers plays Washington State? Who cares if Duke plays Texas Tech? Will their fans care? In many cases some schools have closer schools that create much more interest. NC State has an excellent example with East Carolina. I suspect that Rutgers fans would rather see Rutgers play UConn than to play Washington State.

Anyway, the math will become a real issue, however I think all this is a red herring designed to create a problem, to create an issue - an issue and a problem that is easily solved with a 13th game.

(05-30-2014 03:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 02:03 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Since the Big Ten going to 9 conference games takes around 10-12 games out of the mix (since the extra Big Ten game would normally replace a P5 game in schedules that presently include two P5 schools), that one change has the impact than we would see from every P5 conference adopting an "at least one P5 OOC" rule.

I'm not sure about that. Michigan State, for example, is not cancelling series with MAC opponents to accommodate a 9-game conference schedule. They're ending their series with Notre Dame.

But the first year after their Notre Dame series ends, they play Arizona State, so neither are they dropping playing a P5 school.

2011: AQ: @ND, Non-AQ: CMU, FAU, FCS: Youngstown
2012: AQ: ND, Non-AQ: @CMU, EMU, Boise St.
2013: AQ: @ND, USF, Non-AQ: WMU, FCS: Youngstown
2014: P5: @Oregon, Go5: EMU, Wyoming, FCS: Jax St.
2015: P5: Oregon, Go5: @WMU, CMU, Air Force
2016: P5: @ND, Go5: EMU. (1 TBA)
2017: P5: ND, Go5: WMU, MiamiU
2018: P5: @Arizona St., Go5: CMU. (1 TBA)
2019: Go5: WMU. (2 TBA)

So by appearance so far, its the FCS buy game that is the first to go, with 1 P5 OOC and likely (once the 3-1 contracts with the MI Directionals play out) two Go5 buy games from here on.

(05-30-2014 05:18 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 03:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 02:03 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Since the Big Ten going to 9 conference games takes around 10-12 games out of the mix (since the extra Big Ten game would normally replace a P5 game in schedules that presently include two P5 schools), that one change has the impact than we would see from every P5 conference adopting an "at least one P5 OOC" rule.

I'm not sure about that. Michigan State, for example, is not cancelling series with MAC opponents to accommodate a 9-game conference schedule. They're ending their series with Notre Dame.

But the first year after their Notre Dame series ends, they play Arizona State, so neither are they dropping playing a P5 school.

MSU used to play ND every year even if they had another P5 opponent scheduled. MSU's AD recently mentioned three future years in which they might play ND -- not coincidentally, three years in which MSU has no P5 non-con opponent scheduled. So now it's either ND or another P5 team but never both.

(05-30-2014 01:57 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  Was just listening to ESPN radio and one of the analyst was saying the BXII doesn't want to be forced to play an SEC school in OOC play. Alabama has to play somebody and nobody wants to be 'forced' to play them.

Who is BXII?

(05-30-2014 05:40 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 01:57 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  Was just listening to ESPN radio and one of the analyst was saying the BXII doesn't want to be forced to play an SEC school in OOC play. Alabama has to play somebody and nobody wants to be 'forced' to play them.

Who is BXII?

Big 12 (Big XII).

(05-30-2014 05:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  MSU used to play ND every year even if they had another P5 opponent scheduled. ... So now it's either ND or another P5 team but never both.

Which is why I noted that it "costs" 10-12 "extra" P5 games ~ not 14. Those schools who would otherwise have been playing two P5 schools OOC just switch to one P5 school OOC and one additional P5 conference game. And who is doing it varies from year to year, but it not been unusual to have a few Big Ten schools play two P5 games OOC.

I do recall someone from MSU referring to the difficulty of scheduling 3-1's like they had done with the three Michigan directionals with only three OOC games to work with ... that was part of why they had to rework the schedule of that initiative when the 9 conference game decision was made.