CSNbbs

The good news is there are enough FBS schools to schedule against in order to comply. The bad news is it runs against some weird notion of "tradition" at certain schools. That's why you saw much bellyaching from coaches and fans.

It should have been done a long time ago. Especially now we are in an era of 14-large conferences.

(08-01-2015 01:40 PM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-01-2015 10:51 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure that Notre Dame is even scheduling B1G teams anymore.

They are, eg, MSU 2016/2017, OSU 2022/2023, but they halted the ongoing series that had with That School Up North.

(08-01-2015 11:09 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote: [ -> ](Of course, discrepancy of difficulty within each P5 conference is another story...)

When the Big Ten says that they expect a school to schedule at least one "peer", I believe that also includes the implicit, "if your FB program really sucks, its perfectly fine for you to play an OCC P5 game against a school that is in the same boat" ... AFAIU, in the new system, Indiana and Illinois will be quite OK if they are scheduling Wake Forest and Wazzou.

I don't think that ND wants to continue an annual series with Purdue, either.

Maybe a series here or there.

(07-31-2015 11:29 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]This must be voluntary, rather than mandatory, because some Big Ten teams have FCS opponents scheduled after 2016.

If everyone eventually goes along with it, then G5 teams will be able to charge more for buy games. Just in the Big Ten alone, 14 teams each looking for 2 G5 games/year (and no FCS games) would increase demand enough for G5 teams to increase their asking price.

Start playing 2 home/1 away with MAC schools. They'll take that deal, either at a reduced buy or no money.

And the "away" game can be at an NFL stadium.

(07-31-2015 11:31 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2015 11:29 AM)CougarRed Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2015 11:13 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]so with that- Big Ten champion would have bare minimum ELEVEN p5 games plus BYU- compared to 9 P5 games for Big 12 champion.

Fixed it for you. You forgot the title game.

9 league games
At least 1 intersectional P5 game
1 title game vs Big 10 foe

No, a team could have 9 league games, BYU, and title game. So that would be 10 p5 games plus BYU.

BYU is P5.

SEC and B1G say so. Good enough.

(08-01-2015 01:40 PM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-01-2015 11:09 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote: [ -> ](Of course, discrepancy of difficulty within each P5 conference is another story...)

When the Big Ten says that they expect a school to schedule at least one "peer", I believe that also includes the implicit, "if your FB program really sucks, its perfectly fine for you to play an OCC P5 game against a school that is in the same boat" ... AFAIU, in the new system, Indiana and Illinois will be quite OK if they are scheduling Wake Forest and Wazzou.

Agreed.

This also sets the stage for the Big Ten's new TV negotiations. They are setting the bar for where they want their quality of games to be for the next decade. It's good news that they are raising the bar.

However, for those of us who want the bar HIGHER, it's bad news...because it's where it will be set for the next decade. If the Big Ten wants it here, then the CFP isn't going to vote to make it any harder (even if the SEC/Big 12 suddenly had an about-face and agreed to tougher scheduling).

I'd love to see 1 pre-season home games for P5 schools (doesn't count for records/standings), 9 league games, TWO P5 opponents (home-away series), and 1 paycheck game vs. Group of 5. Then, the big boys are assured 7 home games every year (with the pre-season game as #7) and 8 in some years. Quality of schedules improves. We get a better cross-sampling of conferences through OOC games...which helps the CFP pick four playoff participants better. Maybe in another 15 years it'll happen...

(08-01-2015 03:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2015 11:29 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]This must be voluntary, rather than mandatory, because some Big Ten teams have FCS opponents scheduled after 2016.

If everyone eventually goes along with it, then G5 teams will be able to charge more for buy games. Just in the Big Ten alone, 14 teams each looking for 2 G5 games/year (and no FCS games) would increase demand enough for G5 teams to increase their asking price.

Start playing 2 home/1 away with MAC schools. They'll take that deal, either at a reduced buy or no money.

And the "away" game can be at an NFL stadium.

Toledo wouldn't. Unless the game is against Ohio State or Michigan. Every other school can come to the Glass Bowl.

(07-31-2015 11:29 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]This must be voluntary, rather than mandatory, because some Big Ten teams have FCS opponents scheduled after 2016.

If everyone eventually goes along with it, then G5 teams will be able to charge more for buy games. Just in the Big Ten alone, 14 teams each looking for 2 G5 games/year (and no FCS games) would increase demand enough for G5 teams to increase their asking price.

With the extra conference game, the lack of FCS games leaves the number B1G against G5 unchanged. In fact with required P5 games, the number could even go down. If anything the asking price will drop, with less demand for them.

Some schools could make their schedules easier by removing NDSU from their schedule, or Boise, or UCF, and replacing them with a P5 like Purdue or Wake Forest. But they'll get more credit in terms of SOS from the P5 homers for doing so.

(08-01-2015 08:17 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2015 11:29 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]This must be voluntary, rather than mandatory, because some Big Ten teams have FCS opponents scheduled after 2016.

If everyone eventually goes along with it, then G5 teams will be able to charge more for buy games. Just in the Big Ten alone, 14 teams each looking for 2 G5 games/year (and no FCS games) would increase demand enough for G5 teams to increase their asking price.

With the extra conference game, the lack of FCS games leaves the number B1G against G5 unchanged. In fact with required P5 games, the number could even go down. If anything the asking price will drop, with less demand for them.

The demand isn't going to change much at all. It's still going to be pretty much the exact same as it's been.

The MVFC do play like they are MAC schools against Big 10 at times. Missouri State is the lone exception. For having less scholarships, The MVFC schools could compete against P5 schools. Some others like Towson, James Madison, Jacksonville State, Eastern Washington, McNeese State, Central Arkansas, Montana, Sacramento State, Cal-Davis and Cal-Poly play well against P5 schools. That includes winning some big games as well.

By replacing an OOC buyout game with a home/away conference game you're basically eliminating 1 home game every two years. For schools like OSU that rake in about $5.2M in just ticket sales for a home game that's a lot of lost revenue.

(08-02-2015 03:13 AM)perimeterpost Wrote: [ -> ]By replacing an OOC buyout game with a home/away conference game you're basically eliminating 1 home game every two years. For schools like OSU that rake in about $5.2M in just ticket sales for a home game that's a lot of lost revenue.

Earlier in the B1G press conference Delany was asked about the impact of cord cutting on the next TV contract and he answered that they were very comfortable with how things we going.

You would have to think he is VERY confident in the TV numbers if he is asking the schools to forego revenue up to the amount you mentioned.

(07-31-2015 11:35 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote: [ -> ]Good. I hate having that FCS game. It serves no purpose other than to act as a glorified scrimmage. That game is always played at noon, so I roast in the stands. The only redeeming factor is that RU has been playing MEAC schools, so they always bring their bands.

I hope the powers that be allow the academies to count. RU has long histories with Army and Navy. Those cut blocks kill our DL, but the games always have a great atmosphere.

Said Michigan against App State.

(07-31-2015 12:47 PM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]IIRC, the B10 has been talking about doing this for a while. There was some resistance from Iowa and Minnesota who have some history with FCS teams in their region (Northern Iowa, South Dakota State, North Dakota, etc.). Seems like they must now be willing to move away from those games.

I thought the state of Iowa requires both Iowa and Iowa state to play northern Iowa in later wrong years.

It's not necessarily doing away with a home game though...

Lets say they have 1 home and home series....

in 4 conference game year- they have that series set to be at home, along with the other 2 games.
in 5 conference game year- they have that series set to be away, along with the other 2 home games

so both years they play 7 home games.

(08-02-2015 03:13 AM)perimeterpost Wrote: [ -> ]By replacing an OOC buyout game with a home/away conference game you're basically eliminating 1 home game every two years. For schools like OSU that rake in about $5.2M in just ticket sales for a home game that's a lot of lost revenue.

Except schools like OSU will often be playing 2 P5 schools on H/H contracts under the 8-game conference schedule, so they keep the marquee game, replace the weaker of those two with the extra BigTen game, and are about where they were before.

MSU did lose leeway to continue their 3-1 series with the Michigan directionals ... if they have 1 H/H P5 OOC, then slotting the away to the MAC directional when they are home on that P5 contract means over six years they can have three away games against the Michigan MAC schools, and nine home ... one home and one away MAC games when the P5 game is home, two home MAC games when the P5 game is home, and one buy game (I'm not sure whether it was Go5 or FCS). That no longer works when the P5 game is cycling against the 4/5 BigTen homes games, leading them to reorganize the remaining games on those contracts and they almost certainly won't be signing another set of them.

It's the schools like Indiana who will be most affected ... they do NOT have the big stadiums, and cannot earn a big profit for scheduling any arbitrary Go5 or FCS school. They were:
2010: Towson (FCS), @WKU (Sunbelt), Akron (MAC), Arkansas State (Sunbelt)
2011: Ball State (MAC), Virginia, South Carolina State (FCS), @UNT (Sunbelt)
2012: Indiana State (FCS), @Umass (MAC), Ball State (MAC), @Navy
2013: Indiana State (FCS), Navy, Bowling Green (MAC), Mizzou
2014: Indiana State (FCS), @Bowling Green, @Mizzou, UNT (CUSA)
2015: Southern Illinois (FCS), FIU (CUSA), WKU (CUSA), @WakeForest

So roughly 7 home games (6.83), an away game to a Go5 opponent every second year, and their buy game an FCS opponent every year. They are the ones who have to choose between stepping down to 6.5 homes or stepping up from one FCS buy game to two Go5 buy games.

(08-02-2015 08:00 AM)BobL Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-31-2015 12:47 PM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]IIRC, the B10 has been talking about doing this for a while. There was some resistance from Iowa and Minnesota who have some history with FCS teams in their region (Northern Iowa, South Dakota State, North Dakota, etc.). Seems like they must now be willing to move away from those games.

I thought the state of Iowa requires both Iowa and Iowa state to play northern Iowa in later wrong years.

I don't think there is any requirement. It has just worked out that Iowa and Iowa St have been playing Northern Iowa every other year.

Northern Iowa should try to join the MAC, rather than being left behind completely in FCS.

(08-02-2015 09:15 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]It's not necessarily doing away with a home game though...

Lets say they have 1 home and home series....

in 4 conference game year- they have that series set to be at home, along with the other 2 games.
in 5 conference game year- they have that series set to be away, along with the other 2 home games

so both years they play 7 home games.

This is a great point, so long as they can buy two home games from G5 at a reasonable price every season.

If they schedule 2 home/1 away in leau of payment, then the only way to still get 7 home games on the 1 away year would be for 5 conference home games, the P5 H/H would be home and then go to the G5 team (while the other would be home).

Gonna be interesting to see if this causes the bottom end B1G bowls to start going unfilled. Adding a conference game, mandating a P5/ND/BYU OOC game, and ending FCS games is going to make becoming bowl eligible a much more difficult task for the middle to lower tier of the B1G.

(08-02-2015 12:37 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]Gonna be interesting to see if this causes the bottom end B1G bowls to start going unfilled. Adding a conference game, mandating a P5/ND/BYU OOC game, and ending FCS games is going to make becoming bowl eligible a much more difficult task for the middle to lower tier of the B1G.

The extra conference game means 7 extra guaranteed losses distributed amongst the 14 teams in the conference, and disproportionately distributed amongst the bottom half of the league.

The 9th conference game and no FCS games might effectively mean that Illinois v. Western Illinois and Indiana v. Southern Illinois (two actual 2015 games) are replaced with Illinois v. Indiana, thus guaranteeing that one of those teams is getting a loss instead of the win they would have gotten vs. an FCS team.

That's the real impact on bowl eligibility -- assuming they don't change the rules to make 5-win teams bowl eligible.