I hate the fact we schedule FCS teams more than anybody because I have to pay for that crap.

The thing is, big games make it all worth it from a season ticket holder perspective.

Besides, giving away the tickets to crap games is a nice no-loss gesture to folks.

I prefer nine conference games

(11-15-2015 10:41 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  I don't care as much about 9 game or 8 game...i just want to see every team play at least 10 P5 foes. Clemson's schedule this year...8 ACC games plus South Carolina and Notre Dame is perfect.

Ideally, I'd like my scheduling proposal to go through. Add an exhibition home game as a season opener for P5 schools (doesn't count for stats but fills stadiums and gives TV revenue.) 11 P5 games (6 home/5 away or 5 home/6 away)...and 1 G5 home game...to make 12 "regular season games." Gives at least 7 home games every year. Increases the attractiveness of the competition. More data points for comparing P5 schools for the CFP.

College football should absolutely make the FCS exhibition game happen. It still encourages the FCS matchups - that are meaningful to FCS program budgets and still sell some tickets and generate some TV revenue. But, as exhibition games, it would eliminate the win-padding and force FBS teams to actually play EACH OTHER more often....and earn bowl-eligibility.

The 'P5/G5' distinction is too arbitrary. Is a poor P5 opponent really better than a good G5 opponent? Vanderbilt more worthy than Houston? Kansas a tougher matchup than Toledo? Colorado > Boise St.? Really? Which is the more difficult OOC schedule? Vanderbilt, Kansas, Colorado OR Houston, Toledo, Boise St.?

Either create Division 4 and break off, or treat FBS like FBS without the silly and arbitrary distinction.

(11-16-2015 11:48 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(11-15-2015 10:41 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  I don't care as much about 9 game or 8 game...i just want to see every team play at least 10 P5 foes. Clemson's schedule this year...8 ACC games plus South Carolina and Notre Dame is perfect.

Ideally, I'd like my scheduling proposal to go through. Add an exhibition home game as a season opener for P5 schools (doesn't count for stats but fills stadiums and gives TV revenue.) 11 P5 games (6 home/5 away or 5 home/6 away)...and 1 G5 home game...to make 12 "regular season games." Gives at least 7 home games every year. Increases the attractiveness of the competition. More data points for comparing P5 schools for the CFP.

College football should absolutely make the FCS exhibition game happen. It still encourages the FCS matchups - that are meaningful to FCS program budgets and still sell some tickets and generate some TV revenue. But, as exhibition games, it would eliminate the win-padding and force FBS teams to actually play EACH OTHER more often....and earn bowl-eligibility.

The 'P5/G5' distinction is too arbitrary. Is a poor P5 opponent really better than a good G5 opponent? Vanderbilt more worthy than Houston? Kansas a tougher matchup than Toledo? Colorado > Boise St.? Really? Which is the more difficult OOC schedule? Vanderbilt, Kansas, Colorado OR Houston, Toledo, Boise St.?

Either create Division 4 and break off, or treat FBS like FBS without the silly and arbitrary distinction.

To whom are you saying that?

The NCAA does treat the sub-division as a homogeneous unit.

Similarly, the CFP is owned by all 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame.

well one thing to look at -
look at Utah and Stanford who lost this weekend for 2nd time...
Stanford lost to divisional rival Oregon. Other loss was OOC to Northwestern. 8/9 games doesn't matter much there.
Utah lost to divisional rival Arizona. Other loss was to USC- another divisional rival. 8/9 games doesn't matter much there either.

(11-16-2015 02:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  well one thing to look at -
look at Utah and Stanford who lost this weekend for 2nd time...
Stanford lost to divisional rival Oregon. Other loss was OOC to Northwestern. 8/9 games doesn't matter much there.
Utah lost to divisional rival Arizona. Other loss was to USC- another divisional rival. 8/9 games doesn't matter much there either.

Not in those two cases.

Overall, though, playing 9 conference games instead of 8 means 6 additional guaranteed losses for the Pac-12 as a whole.

When the Big Ten starts playing 9 conference games next year, that will mean 7 additional guaranteed losses distributed amongst its 14 teams.

For the SEC, playing only 8 conference games, and thus playing only 2 of the 7 teams in the other division, means that any good SEC team has an excellent chance of avoiding the good teams in the other division. It's an even better chance if your "permanent rival" in the other division is mediocre. Ole Miss is a good example; their "permanent rival" is Vanderbilt and they only play 1 of the other 6 teams in the east division each year.

(11-16-2015 02:42 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 02:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  well one thing to look at -
look at Utah and Stanford who lost this weekend for 2nd time...
Stanford lost to divisional rival Oregon. Other loss was OOC to Northwestern. 8/9 games doesn't matter much there.
Utah lost to divisional rival Arizona. Other loss was to USC- another divisional rival. 8/9 games doesn't matter much there either.

Not in those two cases.

Overall, though, playing 9 conference games instead of 8 means 6 additional guaranteed losses for the Pac-12 as a whole.

When the Big Ten starts playing 9 conference games next year, that will mean 7 additional guaranteed losses distributed amongst its 14 teams.

For the SEC, playing only 8 conference games, and thus playing only 2 of the 7 teams in the other division, means that any good SEC team has an excellent chance of avoiding the good teams in the other division. It's an even better chance if your "permanent rival" in the other division is mediocre. Ole Miss is a good example; their "permanent rival" is Vanderbilt and they only play 1 of the other 6 teams in the east division each year.

That's fine with me, so long as every SEC team is playing a guaranteed 9 P5 teams per season. I know that four SEC teams do, for sure, because of ACC rivalry games. Both conferences should just match up for one week.

I'd like to see that, along with a commitment from them to drop FCS teams for good.

(11-16-2015 02:48 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 02:42 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 02:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  well one thing to look at -
look at Utah and Stanford who lost this weekend for 2nd time...
Stanford lost to divisional rival Oregon. Other loss was OOC to Northwestern. 8/9 games doesn't matter much there.
Utah lost to divisional rival Arizona. Other loss was to USC- another divisional rival. 8/9 games doesn't matter much there either.

Not in those two cases.

Overall, though, playing 9 conference games instead of 8 means 6 additional guaranteed losses for the Pac-12 as a whole.

When the Big Ten starts playing 9 conference games next year, that will mean 7 additional guaranteed losses distributed amongst its 14 teams.

For the SEC, playing only 8 conference games, and thus playing only 2 of the 7 teams in the other division, means that any good SEC team has an excellent chance of avoiding the good teams in the other division. It's an even better chance if your "permanent rival" in the other division is mediocre. Ole Miss is a good example; their "permanent rival" is Vanderbilt and they only play 1 of the other 6 teams in the east division each year.

That's fine with me, so long as every SEC team is playing a guaranteed 9 P5 teams per season. I know that four SEC teams do, for sure, because of ACC rivalry games. Both conferences should just match up for one week.

I'd like to see that, along with a commitment from them to drop FCS teams for good.

The FCS schools are usually pretty popular at least at SC. They are almost always instate schools that draw decent crowds to Columbia.

There's often some crossover amongst fans too, many Citadel grads for instance are also SC or Clemson fans

(11-16-2015 02:48 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'd like to see that, along with a commitment from them to drop FCS teams for good.

Isn't that the plan? The first part, that is, not the dropping of FCS schools.

Most SEC schools play a P5 school OOC every year, and except for the Mississippi's, the ones that haven't in the past few years have been because of some scheduling crunch ... Vanderbilt losing the season ender against Wake Forest when the SEC made them play the Vols in Rivalry Week, and A&M and Mizzou coping with scheduling fall-out of moving to the SEC.

So the plan is that "all SEC schools should play a P5 school OOC", which is basically the rest of the conference telling the Mississippi's to stop ducking scheduling a P5 school.

Since most SEC schools do that anyway, it was the easiest answer to complaints about the quality of some of the home games on the SEC school's schedules.

(11-17-2015 07:50 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 02:48 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 02:42 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 02:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  well one thing to look at -
look at Utah and Stanford who lost this weekend for 2nd time...
Stanford lost to divisional rival Oregon. Other loss was OOC to Northwestern. 8/9 games doesn't matter much there.
Utah lost to divisional rival Arizona. Other loss was to USC- another divisional rival. 8/9 games doesn't matter much there either.

Not in those two cases.

Overall, though, playing 9 conference games instead of 8 means 6 additional guaranteed losses for the Pac-12 as a whole.

When the Big Ten starts playing 9 conference games next year, that will mean 7 additional guaranteed losses distributed amongst its 14 teams.

For the SEC, playing only 8 conference games, and thus playing only 2 of the 7 teams in the other division, means that any good SEC team has an excellent chance of avoiding the good teams in the other division. It's an even better chance if your "permanent rival" in the other division is mediocre. Ole Miss is a good example; their "permanent rival" is Vanderbilt and they only play 1 of the other 6 teams in the east division each year.

That's fine with me, so long as every SEC team is playing a guaranteed 9 P5 teams per season. I know that four SEC teams do, for sure, because of ACC rivalry games. Both conferences should just match up for one week.

I'd like to see that, along with a commitment from them to drop FCS teams for good.

The FCS schools are usually pretty popular at least at SC. They are almost always instate schools that draw decent crowds to Columbia.

There's often some crossover amongst fans too, many Citadel grads for instance are also SC or Clemson fans

Unless they're playing SC State, though, those FCS teams in South Carolina are generally private schools.

Is Citadel a fully public school in SC? I guess I don't know for sure.


Well anyway, I get the idea but I still say that FCS schools should be barred from SEC schedules. That's my opinion.

(11-17-2015 08:00 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 02:48 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'd like to see that, along with a commitment from them to drop FCS teams for good.

Isn't that the plan? The first part, that is, not the dropping of FCS schools.

Most SEC schools play a P5 school OOC every year, and except for the Mississippi's, the ones that haven't in the past few years have been because of some scheduling crunch ... Vanderbilt losing the season ender against Wake Forest when the SEC made them play the Vols in Rivalry Week, and A&M and Mizzou coping with scheduling fall-out of moving to the SEC.

So the plan is that "all SEC schools should play a P5 school OOC", which is basically the rest of the conference telling the Mississippi's to stop ducking scheduling a P5 school.

Since most SEC schools do that anyway, it was the easiest answer to complaints about the quality of some of the home games on the SEC school's schedules.

I was referring to the idea that the SEC and ACC should just match up for one week of games, since four of each already do that.

Not likely to happen. So yeah, just scheduling 9 P5 in general is good enough for me. And I think that is the requirement going forward for the SEC.