Schedules are out.

http://www.fbschedules.com/2016/06/which...ents-2016/

By conference average # of P5 games:
Pac 12 10.25
Big 12 10.00
Big 10 9.93
ACC 9.43
SEC 9.07

Notre Dame 9.00

Boston College is the only P5 school to play only 8 P5 games. USC, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, Texas, Michigan St. and West Virginia all have 11.

Does BYU count?

Obviously the ACC and SEC will be far behind -- they only play 8 conf games*.

* Four of each conf's 14 football members play a cross-over rivalry game every year, for nine per season.


10 should be the goal, for every P5, IMO. Nine conf games (for ACC/SEC, every team should play a cross-over every year to get to nine) plus one regional non-conf P5 (for PAC, go to 10 conf).

And zero FCS should be allowed, as well. FBS only.

I care much less about the raw number of P5 games than which teams are being played. Consider these two schedule segments:

Team A plays:

#1 Alabama
Alabama State (FCS)
#10 Wisconsin
Wyoming (G5)

Team B plays:

Wake Forest
Iowa State
Washington State
Kentucky

Team B will play four P5 games, Team A "only" two, but the two they are playing are far more dangerous, and hence their schedule is much more respectable. A pretty good P5 team, say a team that will finish 8-4, will have a FAR better chance of going unbeaten against schedule B than schedule A.

Yet some around here would rag on A for playing an FCS.

(07-01-2016 11:27 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  Does BYU count?

Depends on who's playing them and if you win or lose to them. It's a fluid situation.

Cheers!

(07-01-2016 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I care much less about the raw number of P5 games than which teams are being played. Consider these two schedule segments:

Team A plays:

#1 Alabama
Alabama State (FCS)
#10 Wisconsin
Wyoming (G5)

Team B plays:

Wake Forest
Iowa State
Washington State
Kentucky

Team B will play four P5 games, Team A "only" two, but the two they are playing are far more dangerous, and hence their schedule is much more respectable. A pretty good P5 team, say a team that will finish 8-4, will have a FAR better chance of going unbeaten against schedule B than schedule A.

Yet some around here would rag on A for playing an FCS.

Quo, I wish you weren't an SEC apologist. I like your posts other than the ones that are thinly disguised pro-SEC posts. BTW, is the new Gov out there going to let you guys, LSU, play football this season?
Cheers!

(07-01-2016 11:27 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  Does BYU count?

This article is counting BYU.

(07-01-2016 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I care much less about the raw number of P5 games than which teams are being played. Consider these two schedule segments:

Team A plays:

#1 Alabama
Alabama State (FCS)
#10 Wisconsin
Wyoming (G5)

Team B plays:

Wake Forest
Iowa State
Washington State
Kentucky

Team B will play four P5 games, Team A "only" two, but the two they are playing are far more dangerous, and hence their schedule is much more respectable. A pretty good P5 team, say a team that will finish 8-4, will have a FAR better chance of going unbeaten against schedule B than schedule A.

Yet some around here would rag on A for playing an FCS.

Alabama should NEVER play an FCS school. USC, Notre Dame and UCLA have never played one.

Its one thing when Vanderbilt plays FCS or even Ole Miss or Arkansas. But schools like Alabama have no business doing that.

(07-01-2016 11:24 AM)bullet Wrote:  Schedules are out.

http://www.fbschedules.com/2016/06/which...ents-2016/

By conference average # of P5 games:
Pac 12 10.25
Big 12 10.00
Big 10 9.93
ACC 9.43
SEC 9.07

Notre Dame 9.00

Boston College is the only P5 school to play only 8 P5 games. USC, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, Texas, Michigan St. and West Virginia all have 11.

Does those averages include the CCG?

(07-01-2016 03:55 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I care much less about the raw number of P5 games than which teams are being played. Consider these two schedule segments:

Team A plays:

#1 Alabama
Alabama State (FCS)
#10 Wisconsin
Wyoming (G5)

Team B plays:

Wake Forest
Iowa State
Washington State
Kentucky

Team B will play four P5 games, Team A "only" two, but the two they are playing are far more dangerous, and hence their schedule is much more respectable. A pretty good P5 team, say a team that will finish 8-4, will have a FAR better chance of going unbeaten against schedule B than schedule A.

Yet some around here would rag on A for playing an FCS.

Quo, I wish you weren't an SEC apologist. I like your posts other than the ones that are thinly disguised pro-SEC posts. BTW, is the new Gov out there going to let you guys, LSU, play football this season?
Cheers!

To everyone's surprise, the governor protected higher education from all but a very small cut, so everyone will be playing football this fall, LOL.

But of course things are likely to change in January, AFTER the football has been played, when all the optimistic assumptions that enabled him and the legislature to declare the budget "balanced" go up in smoke. Then another round of cuts and dire predictions will occur.

And so it goes ...

(07-01-2016 05:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I care much less about the raw number of P5 games than which teams are being played. Consider these two schedule segments:

Team A plays:

#1 Alabama
Alabama State (FCS)
#10 Wisconsin
Wyoming (G5)

Team B plays:

Wake Forest
Iowa State
Washington State
Kentucky

Team B will play four P5 games, Team A "only" two, but the two they are playing are far more dangerous, and hence their schedule is much more respectable. A pretty good P5 team, say a team that will finish 8-4, will have a FAR better chance of going unbeaten against schedule B than schedule A.

Yet some around here would rag on A for playing an FCS.

Alabama should NEVER play an FCS school. USC, Notre Dame and UCLA have never played one.

Its one thing when Vanderbilt plays FCS or even Ole Miss or Arkansas. But schools like Alabama have no business doing that.

Why not? Heck, it allows those FCS schools to get a tiny slice of all those CFP dollars.

And competitively, the only thing that matters is overall SOS. If you can play an FCS or two and still have a good SOS because the rest of your schedule is tough, then what's to complain about?

Last year is proof against your position: Alabama played an FCS, and yet at the end of the year their Sagarin SOS was #1. How can anyone complain about the team with the #1 schedule? Are you going to say that it was unfair that they didn't play an even tougher schedule?

It's only a problem when playing FCS means your SOS is weak.

(07-01-2016 05:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 11:27 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  Does BYU count?

This article is counting BYU.

Seems to me Houston should count too.

(07-01-2016 06:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 05:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I care much less about the raw number of P5 games than which teams are being played. Consider these two schedule segments:

Team A plays:

#1 Alabama
Alabama State (FCS)
#10 Wisconsin
Wyoming (G5)

Team B plays:

Wake Forest
Iowa State
Washington State
Kentucky

Team B will play four P5 games, Team A "only" two, but the two they are playing are far more dangerous, and hence their schedule is much more respectable. A pretty good P5 team, say a team that will finish 8-4, will have a FAR better chance of going unbeaten against schedule B than schedule A.

Yet some around here would rag on A for playing an FCS.

Alabama should NEVER play an FCS school. USC, Notre Dame and UCLA have never played one.

Its one thing when Vanderbilt plays FCS or even Ole Miss or Arkansas. But schools like Alabama have no business doing that.

Why not? Heck, it allows those FCS schools to get a tiny slice of all those CFP dollars.

And competitively, the only thing that matters is overall SOS. If you can play an FCS or two and still have a good SOS because the rest of your schedule is tough, then what's to complain about?

Last year is proof against your position: Alabama played an FCS, and yet at the end of the year their Sagarin SOS was #1. How can anyone complain about the team with the #1 schedule? Are you going to say that it was unfair that they didn't play an even tougher schedule?

It's only a problem when playing FCS means your SOS is weak.

You also have to look at the fact that some teams play FCS for a home game. Playing P5 means you play home and home or neutral locations (at least most if the time). That does mean an advantage to the teams that do this. Your example shows this by being able to play as many as 3 home games with a neutral site in the first four teams and the second set of teams in all probability being two home and two away. I feel this is an advantage in scheduling when playing at home is a lot easier.

(07-01-2016 06:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 05:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I care much less about the raw number of P5 games than which teams are being played. Consider these two schedule segments:

Team A plays:

#1 Alabama
Alabama State (FCS)
#10 Wisconsin
Wyoming (G5)

Team B plays:

Wake Forest
Iowa State
Washington State
Kentucky

Team B will play four P5 games, Team A "only" two, but the two they are playing are far more dangerous, and hence their schedule is much more respectable. A pretty good P5 team, say a team that will finish 8-4, will have a FAR better chance of going unbeaten against schedule B than schedule A.

Yet some around here would rag on A for playing an FCS.

Alabama should NEVER play an FCS school. USC, Notre Dame and UCLA have never played one.

Its one thing when Vanderbilt plays FCS or even Ole Miss or Arkansas. But schools like Alabama have no business doing that.

Why not? Heck, it allows those FCS schools to get a tiny slice of all those CFP dollars.

And competitively, the only thing that matters is overall SOS. If you can play an FCS or two and still have a good SOS because the rest of your schedule is tough, then what's to complain about?

Last year is proof against your position: Alabama played an FCS, and yet at the end of the year their Sagarin SOS was #1. How can anyone complain about the team with the #1 schedule? Are you going to say that it was unfair that they didn't play an even tougher schedule?

It's only a problem when playing FCS means your SOS is weak.

Its playing 85 against 63 when those 85 are top-flite players. Alabama scheduled Georgia St. when they were in their first year of football and threatened to never give them another chance if they didn't take the offer (according to former Crimson Tide player and then GSU coach Bill Curry). That was a ridiculous mismatch and potentially risky for Georgia St. players who were much smaller and slower.

You don't see any 6A HS powers scheduling weaker 2A schools. You don't even see them playing 5A schools. But Alabama plays FCS.

(07-02-2016 10:24 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 06:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 05:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I care much less about the raw number of P5 games than which teams are being played. Consider these two schedule segments:

Team A plays:

#1 Alabama
Alabama State (FCS)
#10 Wisconsin
Wyoming (G5)

Team B plays:

Wake Forest
Iowa State
Washington State
Kentucky

Team B will play four P5 games, Team A "only" two, but the two they are playing are far more dangerous, and hence their schedule is much more respectable. A pretty good P5 team, say a team that will finish 8-4, will have a FAR better chance of going unbeaten against schedule B than schedule A.

Yet some around here would rag on A for playing an FCS.

Alabama should NEVER play an FCS school. USC, Notre Dame and UCLA have never played one.

Its one thing when Vanderbilt plays FCS or even Ole Miss or Arkansas. But schools like Alabama have no business doing that.

Why not? Heck, it allows those FCS schools to get a tiny slice of all those CFP dollars.

And competitively, the only thing that matters is overall SOS. If you can play an FCS or two and still have a good SOS because the rest of your schedule is tough, then what's to complain about?

Last year is proof against your position: Alabama played an FCS, and yet at the end of the year their Sagarin SOS was #1. How can anyone complain about the team with the #1 schedule? Are you going to say that it was unfair that they didn't play an even tougher schedule?

It's only a problem when playing FCS means your SOS is weak.

You also have to look at the fact that some teams play FCS for a home game. Playing P5 means you play home and home or neutral locations (at least most if the time). That does mean an advantage to the teams that do this. Your example shows this by being able to play as many as 3 home games with a neutral site in the first four teams and the second set of teams in all probability being two home and two away. I feel this is an advantage in scheduling when playing at home is a lot easier.

My understanding is that basically all computer SOS formulas, such as Sagarin, take into account home vs away.

But I'm not sure I buy your point anyway, in that the difference here is going to boil down to Team A playing FCS Alabama State at home rather than away. And I don't think there's much doubt that if Team A is a "pretty good" P5 team, as my example assumes, that their odds of beating an FCS team are overwhelmingly high, home or away.

It would be nice to see every P5 team play 10 other P5 teams every year. We are getting closer.

(07-02-2016 11:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 06:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 05:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I care much less about the raw number of P5 games than which teams are being played. Consider these two schedule segments:

Team A plays:

#1 Alabama
Alabama State (FCS)
#10 Wisconsin
Wyoming (G5)

Team B plays:

Wake Forest
Iowa State
Washington State
Kentucky

Team B will play four P5 games, Team A "only" two, but the two they are playing are far more dangerous, and hence their schedule is much more respectable. A pretty good P5 team, say a team that will finish 8-4, will have a FAR better chance of going unbeaten against schedule B than schedule A.

Yet some around here would rag on A for playing an FCS.

Alabama should NEVER play an FCS school. USC, Notre Dame and UCLA have never played one.

Its one thing when Vanderbilt plays FCS or even Ole Miss or Arkansas. But schools like Alabama have no business doing that.

Why not? Heck, it allows those FCS schools to get a tiny slice of all those CFP dollars.

And competitively, the only thing that matters is overall SOS. If you can play an FCS or two and still have a good SOS because the rest of your schedule is tough, then what's to complain about?

Last year is proof against your position: Alabama played an FCS, and yet at the end of the year their Sagarin SOS was #1. How can anyone complain about the team with the #1 schedule? Are you going to say that it was unfair that they didn't play an even tougher schedule?

It's only a problem when playing FCS means your SOS is weak.

Its playing 85 against 63 when those 85 are top-flite players. Alabama scheduled Georgia St. when they were in their first year of football and threatened to never give them another chance if they didn't take the offer (according to former Crimson Tide player and then GSU coach Bill Curry). That was a ridiculous mismatch and potentially risky for Georgia St. players who were much smaller and slower.

Football is risky. I wonder if there's any data that shows that FCS teams tend to experience more injuries when playing P5 teams? I'm not sure it would.

(07-02-2016 11:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 06:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 05:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 11:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I care much less about the raw number of P5 games than which teams are being played. Consider these two schedule segments:

Team A plays:

#1 Alabama
Alabama State (FCS)
#10 Wisconsin
Wyoming (G5)

Team B plays:

Wake Forest
Iowa State
Washington State
Kentucky

Team B will play four P5 games, Team A "only" two, but the two they are playing are far more dangerous, and hence their schedule is much more respectable. A pretty good P5 team, say a team that will finish 8-4, will have a FAR better chance of going unbeaten against schedule B than schedule A.

Yet some around here would rag on A for playing an FCS.

Alabama should NEVER play an FCS school. USC, Notre Dame and UCLA have never played one.

Its one thing when Vanderbilt plays FCS or even Ole Miss or Arkansas. But schools like Alabama have no business doing that.

Why not? Heck, it allows those FCS schools to get a tiny slice of all those CFP dollars.

And competitively, the only thing that matters is overall SOS. If you can play an FCS or two and still have a good SOS because the rest of your schedule is tough, then what's to complain about?

Last year is proof against your position: Alabama played an FCS, and yet at the end of the year their Sagarin SOS was #1. How can anyone complain about the team with the #1 schedule? Are you going to say that it was unfair that they didn't play an even tougher schedule?

It's only a problem when playing FCS means your SOS is weak.

Its playing 85 against 63 when those 85 are top-flite players. Alabama scheduled Georgia St. when they were in their first year of football and threatened to never give them another chance if they didn't take the offer (according to former Crimson Tide player and then GSU coach Bill Curry). That was a ridiculous mismatch and potentially risky for Georgia St. players who were much smaller and slower.

Schools in entirely different divisions of football should not play against each other.

Hell, why not Division II schools, then?

Agreed, Terry and bullet.

FBS teams should not be allowed to schedule FCS schools.