More problems associated with their scheduling by having fewer teams.

http://newsok.com/article/5437806?utm_so...r-Facebook

And OU continues its PR campaign against the Big 12. Interesting.

That's two articles in the recent days he has written that is Pro B1G. He must have been told something in confidential and is prepping the masses.

(08-03-2015 02:54 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  That's two articles in the recent days he has written that is Pro B1G. He must have been told something in confidential and is prepping the masses.

Note that "1910" is something that the Big12 could do without expansion once the CCG is deregulated.

But also, going to 12 with 9 conference games means its easier to guarantee a reasonable degree of access to Texas for the schools outside of Texas.

(08-03-2015 02:52 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  And OU continues its PR campaign against the Big 12. Interesting.

This was my exact thoughts also.

(08-03-2015 03:48 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 02:52 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  And OU continues its PR campaign against the Big 12. Interesting.

This was my exact thoughts also.

Or at least Trammel does. Its a pretty stupid piece.
Prior to the Big 10 change every conference played more FCS schools than the Big 12. Generally every SEC and ACC school play 1 and some ACC schools have played 2. Everyone in the Pac except for USC and UCLA do as well, so that's 10/12, 83%. In the Big 12 usually OU and Texas didn't, so that's 8/10, 80%. Nearly everyone in the Big 10 was playing one as well.

And someone calculated (I think on here) the number of P5 schools this year-Big 12 and Pac 12 9.8, Big 10 9.2 (maybe it was ACC) and SEC and ACC 8.8.
(edit saw the comment again-Big 10 was 9.2, ACC was 9.4, SEC alone below 9)

Just a bored sportswriter. His take is worth exactly as much as that of any of us here.

oh my! Tomorrow is TUESDAY...just sayin

The mandate to not play FCS schools is a silly mandate, IMO, at least in regard to SOS. MAC type games are more similar to FCS than not- Since 2000 the Big 10 is 88-6 against FCS, 158-27 versus the MAC (.936 versus .854). Not a huge difference, at least enough to draw the line as: quality above the FBS line, not quality below. There are a lot of good FCS teams. As the teams that have played NDSt the last several years can attest.

(08-03-2015 05:25 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  The mandate to not play FCS schools is a silly mandate, IMO, at least in regard to SOS. MAC type games are more similar to FCS than not- Since 2000 the Big 10 is 88-6 against FCS, 158-27 versus the MAC (.936 versus .854). Not a huge difference, at least enough to draw the line as: quality above the FBS line, not quality below. There are a lot of good FCS teams. As the teams that have played NDSt the last several years can attest.

I think its good. FCS only has 63 scholarships. Its not a level playing field at all. At least the MAC has 85. And there's no reason for power teams to be playing FCS schools unless there is a scheduling difficulty. Notre Dame, USC and UCLA never have. Texas rarely has.

(08-03-2015 05:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 05:25 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  The mandate to not play FCS schools is a silly mandate, IMO, at least in regard to SOS. MAC type games are more similar to FCS than not- Since 2000 the Big 10 is 88-6 against FCS, 158-27 versus the MAC (.936 versus .854). Not a huge difference, at least enough to draw the line as: quality above the FBS line, not quality below. There are a lot of good FCS teams. As the teams that have played NDSt the last several years can attest.

I think its good. FCS only has 63 scholarships. Its not a level playing field at all. At least the MAC has 85. And there's no reason for power teams to be playing FCS schools unless there is a scheduling difficulty. Notre Dame, USC and UCLA never have. Texas rarely has.

I agree, perhaps someday the SEC will stop playing FCS school.

(08-03-2015 04:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 03:48 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 02:52 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  And OU continues its PR campaign against the Big 12. Interesting.

This was my exact thoughts also.

Or at least Trammel does. Its a pretty stupid piece.
Prior to the Big 10 change every conference played more FCS schools than the Big 12. Generally every SEC and ACC school play 1 and some ACC schools have played 2. Everyone in the Pac except for USC and UCLA do as well, so that's 10/12, 83%. In the Big 12 usually OU and Texas didn't, so that's 8/10, 80%. Nearly everyone in the Big 10 was playing one as well.

And someone calculated (I think on here) the number of P5 schools this year-Big 12 and Pac 12 9.8, Big 10 9.2 (maybe it was ACC) and SEC and ACC 8.8.
(edit saw the comment again-Big 10 was 9.2, ACC was 9.4, SEC alone below 9)

Pretty sure the ACC schedules more P5 OOC than any other conference, even despite NC State scheduling OOC as if they were Baylor (Incarnate Word?).

(08-03-2015 05:33 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 05:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 05:25 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  The mandate to not play FCS schools is a silly mandate, IMO, at least in regard to SOS. MAC type games are more similar to FCS than not- Since 2000 the Big 10 is 88-6 against FCS, 158-27 versus the MAC (.936 versus .854). Not a huge difference, at least enough to draw the line as: quality above the FBS line, not quality below. There are a lot of good FCS teams. As the teams that have played NDSt the last several years can attest.

I think its good. FCS only has 63 scholarships. Its not a level playing field at all. At least the MAC has 85. And there's no reason for power teams to be playing FCS schools unless there is a scheduling difficulty. Notre Dame, USC and UCLA never have. Texas rarely has.

I agree, perhaps someday the SEC will stop playing FCS school.

funny, coming from a fan of a team that got PUMMELLED by a FCS school (53-21) in 2013, and barely beat a mediocre FCS school last year, and this year has one of the worst teams in FCS scheduled.

I'm on board with the idea that nobody in the P5 should be playing I-AA schools. It's ridiculous.

(08-03-2015 05:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 05:25 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  The mandate to not play FCS schools is a silly mandate, IMO, at least in regard to SOS. MAC type games are more similar to FCS than not- Since 2000 the Big 10 is 88-6 against FCS, 158-27 versus the MAC (.936 versus .854). Not a huge difference, at least enough to draw the line as: quality above the FBS line, not quality below. There are a lot of good FCS teams. As the teams that have played NDSt the last several years can attest.

I think its good. FCS only has 63 scholarships. Its not a level playing field at all. At least the MAC has 85. And there's no reason for power teams to be playing FCS schools unless there is a scheduling difficulty. Notre Dame, USC and UCLA never have. Texas rarely has.

And it's a level playing field with the MAC? Sure the number of schollies is less, but the overall power ratings aren't that different, resulting in similar records for the Big 10 versus both. I suspect that is because of the big gap in resources is between the BiG 10 and the MAC. The resource gap between the MAC and FCS is not nearly as great, resulting in a similar BIg 10 record against both.

(08-03-2015 05:42 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I'm on board with the idea that nobody in the P5 should be playing I-AA schools. It's ridiculous.

What about ND St?

I'm Ok with encouraging tougher nonconference schedules, but I don't think subbing a weak FBS team for a FCS team really accomplishes that, and hurts the FCS who are losing a major revenue source and opportunity. Requiring a P5 team (or two for 8 game conf schedule)- fine. Outlawing FCS games but replacing them with easy home games against the sunbelt or bad MAC teams seems hypocritical.

I really dont get the blasting of the big 12. Adding teams might be good or bad, but it wont stop teams from leaving and might drive texas (the team with the most choices) away.

As for how it effects anything else, were had one year cfp data. Get a team in last year and the articles would be on the "unfair advatage" on the conference.

No school should be playing lower division schools. Play schools at your own level and man up.

Nobody should be buying bye week wins in Nov. Nobody.

(08-03-2015 05:45 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 05:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 05:25 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  The mandate to not play FCS schools is a silly mandate, IMO, at least in regard to SOS. MAC type games are more similar to FCS than not- Since 2000 the Big 10 is 88-6 against FCS, 158-27 versus the MAC (.936 versus .854). Not a huge difference, at least enough to draw the line as: quality above the FBS line, not quality below. There are a lot of good FCS teams. As the teams that have played NDSt the last several years can attest.

I think its good. FCS only has 63 scholarships. Its not a level playing field at all. At least the MAC has 85. And there's no reason for power teams to be playing FCS schools unless there is a scheduling difficulty. Notre Dame, USC and UCLA never have. Texas rarely has.

And it's a level playing field with the MAC? Sure the number of schollies is less, but the overall power ratings aren't that different, resulting in similar records for the Big 10 versus both. I suspect that is because of the big gap in resources is between the BiG 10 and the MAC. The resource gap between the MAC and FCS is not nearly as great, resulting in a similar BIg 10 record against both.

NIU would like a word with you... they wrote the book on upsetting P5 (especially B1G) teams

(08-03-2015 05:25 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  The mandate to not play FCS schools is a silly mandate, IMO, at least in regard to SOS. MAC type games are more similar to FCS than not- Since 2000 the Big 10 is 88-6 against FCS, 158-27 versus the MAC (.936 versus .854). Not a huge difference, at least enough to draw the line as: quality above the FBS line, not quality below. There are a lot of good FCS teams. As the teams that have played NDSt the last several years can attest.

Even the top FCS schools could get some top players to join over FBS schools. With the report a few weeks ago about NCAA meeting with schools from FBS, FCS, D2 and basketball schools? I think someone pointed out that some FCS conferences could move to FBS, and some D2 conferences could move up to FCS. D2 has the most football playing members than any other conferencs, and some more looking to add the sport.