(10-08-2015 01:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think it's a pretty clear pattern:

If a Big Ten school had already scheduled a home-and-home series against a G5 school prior to the finalization of the P5 non-conference requirement, then they'll count those home-and-home series as "P5" opponents so that the schools don't have to buy out any games that would have been played at G5 stadiums.

Side note: Me personally, any team you are willing to play on the road, should be good enough, since P5 schools don't play on the road at G5 teams in large numbers

(10-08-2015 02:04 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 02:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  EDIT: I do see that none of the service academies have any home games scheduled against Big Ten schools as of now. That's a common link between BYU, Cincinnati and UConn, though. Maybe the Big Ten is simply granting that status to the service academies to be politically correct.

Shouldn't the B10 be granting that status to the MAC? The MAC is the conference that is putting in work against the B10.

I think that is the specific reason the "rule" was made.

(10-08-2015 02:04 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 02:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  EDIT: I do see that none of the service academies have any home games scheduled against Big Ten schools as of now. That's a common link between BYU, Cincinnati and UConn, though. Maybe the Big Ten is simply granting that status to the service academies to be politically correct.

Shouldn't the B10 be granting that status to the MAC? The MAC is the conference that is putting in work against the B10.

Answer is NO

The MAC is supposed to be cupcake central, much like the Sun Belt provides cupcakes for the SEC

There is a dividing line in all this mess....I guess it's more obvious for me, as UConn, Cincinnati, and BYU are pretty much P5 type schools....

IMO this is driven by the desire to have 7 home games yearly which can be difficult with a 9 game conference schedule.

(10-08-2015 12:15 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Air Force plays at Michigan in 2017. Waiver for counting them as meeting the P5 requirement, just like UConn and Cincy.

Boise St doesn't play Michigan St until 2022 so they'll get a waiver to count BSU as part of the P5 requirement when the date gets closer.

I thought that too but Michigan already had a OOC P5 opponent in 2017, Florida.... and Cincy if you consider their prior rule on them.

(10-08-2015 02:39 PM)mj4life Wrote:  IMO this is driven by the desire to have 7 home games yearly which can be difficult with a 9 game conference schedule.

This is true... and I wouldn't even call it a "desire". For all intents and purposes, a 7-game annual home schedule is *mandatory* from a financial perspective for Big Ten schools (and, for that matter, SEC schools) to keep up with the Joneses within their own league. The 7-game home schedule has gone from a "nice to have" into a "sacrosanct right" fairly quickly for Big Ten and SEC schools.

(10-08-2015 02:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 02:39 PM)mj4life Wrote:  IMO this is driven by the desire to have 7 home games yearly which can be difficult with a 9 game conference schedule.

This is true... and I wouldn't even call it a "desire". For all intents and purposes, a 7-game annual home schedule is *mandatory* from a financial perspective for Big Ten schools (and, for that matter, SEC schools) to keep up with the Joneses within their own league. The 7-game home schedule has gone from a "nice to have" into a "sacrosanct right" fairly quickly for Big Ten and SEC schools.

It's really though apples to oranges. You can have 7 game annual home schedules- AND still have a P5 OOC game every year. Just have the road component of the home and home the year you are hosting 5 conference games and the home component the year you have 4 home conference games. So the 7 home game thing really doesn't have anything to do with this at all.

(10-08-2015 02:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 01:12 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Posted this in the other thread, but the moves suggest to me, the big reason for the one team from a power 5 conference rule was for TV reasons more so than strength of schedule. Those games are more appealing in general so they wanted to guarentee some.

I think its pretty clear its all about TV. Service academies get good ratings.

We have winners. The P5 requirement was all about leverage going into the current negotiations with ESPN and Fox (and ????). The B1G wants strong television inventory and the schools who are excepted must generate sufficiently strong ratings.

(10-08-2015 02:50 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 02:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 02:39 PM)mj4life Wrote:  IMO this is driven by the desire to have 7 home games yearly which can be difficult with a 9 game conference schedule.

This is true... and I wouldn't even call it a "desire". For all intents and purposes, a 7-game annual home schedule is *mandatory* from a financial perspective for Big Ten schools (and, for that matter, SEC schools) to keep up with the Joneses within their own league. The 7-game home schedule has gone from a "nice to have" into a "sacrosanct right" fairly quickly for Big Ten and SEC schools.

It's really though apples to oranges. You can have 7 game annual home schedules- AND still have a P5 OOC game every year. Just have the road component of the home and home the year you are hosting 5 conference games and the home component the year you have 4 home conference games. So the 7 home game thing really doesn't have anything to do with this at all.

Agreed, but the point is that this is what is making it difficult. In essence, Big Ten schools can only have 1 non-conference road game (whether it's against a P5 school or anyone else) once every 2 years. Meanwhile, the Big Ten ban on FCS games takes away the ability to get a relatively inexpensive one-and-done home game every year. So, Big Ten non-conference schedules going forward effectively require 2 home games against G5 opponents and then 1 P5 game (presumably home-and-home). The costs for those 2 G5 home games can be large and a fair number of them have enough leverage to demand at least one return game, which complicates matters. Certainly, schools such as Ohio State and Michigan can easily pay for those 2 G5 home games without blinking. Schools with more sensitive attendance issues (such as my alma mater of Illinois) can't necessarily do it as easily even with all of the TV revenue coming in.

Now, I understand that this is a "rich person problem" in the scheme of college football, but that's how Big Ten schools are looking at things. Illinois and Indiana are going to compare their scheduling issues to the likes of Ohio State, regardless of how much easier Illinois and Indiana might have it compared to a G5 school.

(10-08-2015 02:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 01:12 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Posted this in the other thread, but the moves suggest to me, the big reason for the one team from a power 5 conference rule was for TV reasons more so than strength of schedule. Those games are more appealing in general so they wanted to guarentee some.

That's more of a general rule than an absolute though. The armed service academies are big brands themselves even if have a football ceiling. UConn is the flagship of a big state and a well known name because of basketball. Cincinnati has had a lot of recent success. Boise State I expect will be accepted too.

In short, this wasn't an attempt to really differeniate between power 5 conferences and non, but that label was simply a convienent starting place to try to get stronger schedules for TV. If teams outside those 5 conferences fit the general mold to deliver the same results, the conference will go for it.

I think its pretty clear its all about TV. Service academies get good ratings.

I'd like to see some data on that, because if it were so then explain why Army and Navy are buried on CBS Sports except for the inter-academy games and Notre Dame.

(10-08-2015 02:03 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 12:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Don't know why the Big Ten office is still playing this silly game, when it's obvious that if any Big Ten team doesn't have a P5 opponent on any future non-conference schedule, they'll just call one of the three teams on the schedule a designated P5 team. :coffee3:

If you know anything about college football, you know that there's about 15ish programs that could easily be considered P5, but aren't in a P5 conference for whatever reason

BYU, Cincinnati, and UConn are obvious ones....the Academies are obvious.....

you also have Houston, East Carolina, Boise State, UCF, Colorado State, San Diego State, and a few others....

you also have a lot of programs that aren't on the same scale as P5 schools....

There is nothing obvious about any of those schools. There are reasons they did not make the cut. Academics in some cases, attendence, history, etc. They are what you would call border-line. And sorry it is not obvious service academies should be considered. In fact I am quite confused about this given their current status and limitations.

Every P5 conference is looking for a reason why their conference champ should be included in the CFP. The battle for perception on the Number of P5 Opponents front wound up being a semantic skirmish that no one cares about. Ultimately, determination of "quality" OOC opponents, which will play a role in playoff selection, is proving to be a matter of the eye test more than P5/Not P5 or anything else.

The service academies are included to keep Congress on the sidelines.

(10-08-2015 04:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 02:50 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 02:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 02:39 PM)mj4life Wrote:  IMO this is driven by the desire to have 7 home games yearly which can be difficult with a 9 game conference schedule.

This is true... and I wouldn't even call it a "desire". For all intents and purposes, a 7-game annual home schedule is *mandatory* from a financial perspective for Big Ten schools (and, for that matter, SEC schools) to keep up with the Joneses within their own league. The 7-game home schedule has gone from a "nice to have" into a "sacrosanct right" fairly quickly for Big Ten and SEC schools.

It's really though apples to oranges. You can have 7 game annual home schedules- AND still have a P5 OOC game every year. Just have the road component of the home and home the year you are hosting 5 conference games and the home component the year you have 4 home conference games. So the 7 home game thing really doesn't have anything to do with this at all.

Agreed, but the point is that this is what is making it difficult. In essence, Big Ten schools can only have 1 non-conference road game (whether it's against a P5 school or anyone else) once every 2 years. Meanwhile, the Big Ten ban on FCS games takes away the ability to get a relatively inexpensive one-and-done home game every year. So, Big Ten non-conference schedules going forward effectively require 2 home games against G5 opponents and then 1 P5 game (presumably home-and-home). The costs for those 2 G5 home games can be large and a fair number of them have enough leverage to demand at least one return game, which complicates matters. Certainly, schools such as Ohio State and Michigan can easily pay for those 2 G5 home games without blinking. Schools with more sensitive attendance issues (such as my alma mater of Illinois) can't necessarily do it as easily even with all of the TV revenue coming in.

Now, I understand that this is a "rich person problem" in the scheme of college football, but that's how Big Ten schools are looking at things. Illinois and Indiana are going to compare their scheduling issues to the likes of Ohio State, regardless of how much easier Illinois and Indiana might have it compared to a G5 school.

This is the reason I don't care for the no FCS games rule as a Maryland fan. Ohio State won't have to leave the Horseshoe, and meanwhile Maryland trades a regional-FCS opponent for a Sun Belt/MAC school which will require either a two-for-one or even a H/H.

(10-08-2015 01:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think it's a pretty clear pattern:

If a Big Ten school had already scheduled a home-and-home series against a G5 school prior to the finalization of the P5 non-conference requirement, then they'll count those home-and-home series as "P5" opponents so that the schools don't have to buy out any games that would have been played at G5 stadiums. It's almost entirely financial - the Big Ten doesn't want to force its schools to buy out games that have already been scheduled simply to fulfill the new conference scheduling requirements. The same thing is applied with respect to FCS schools - if Big Ten schools have already scheduled those games, then the conference will allow them to honor their contracts.

With that in mind, the real test is who the Big Ten allows exceptions for with respect to non-P5 home-and-home series that are *newly* scheduled.

What about the Northern Iowa and Iowa games? They have been a long time rival.

Now, if the P5 starts counting G5 schools as P5? Could there be a split to keep 5 power conferences, move some schools around, and then add P5?

I think these schools made a name for themselves to be considered a P5 football school.

North Dakota State
Boise State
Houston
Memphis (strong basketball)
Toledo (seems to pull upsets every year against P5.)
Navy
Georgia Southern (plays like a P5 team.)
Eastern Washington
James Madison
Air force
Jacksonville State
Cincinnati
Western Kentucky
Ohio U.
William and Mary
Portland State
Illinois State
Youngstown State
Northern Iowa
Colorado State
East Carolina
U. Conn.
Northern Illinois
Utah State
Hawaii
UNR
Appalachian State
La.-Lafayette
La.-Monroe
Temple
UCF
UTSA
Bowling Green
U. Mass.
San Deigo State
UNLV
New Mexico
Fresno State (Hello Rutgers. )
Troy
Army
BYU
Sacramento State
McNeese State
Furman

(10-08-2015 07:21 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  What about the Northern Iowa and Iowa games? They have been a long time rival.

They have played a grand total of 17 times and 6 times in the modern era. Pretty sure Iowa will survive.

Quote:Now, if the P5 starts counting G5 schools as P5? Could there be a split to keep 5 power conferences, move some schools around, and then add P5?

I think these schools made a name for themselves to be considered a P5 football school.

North Dakota State Nope
Boise State
Houston
Memphis (strong basketball) Nope
Toledo (seems to pull upsets every year against P5.) Nope
Navy
Georgia Southern (plays like a P5 team.) Nope
Eastern Washington Nope
James Madison Nope
Air force
Jacksonville State Nope
Cincinnati
Western Kentucky Nope
Ohio U. Nope
William and Mary Nope
Portland State Nope
Illinois State Nope
Youngstown State Nope
Northern Iowa Nope
Colorado State Nope
East Carolina
U. Conn. Nope
Northern Illinois
Utah State Nope
Hawaii Nope
UNR Nope
Appalachian State Nope
La.-Lafayette Nope
La.-Monroe Nope
Temple Nope
UCF
UTSA Nope
Bowling Green Nope
U. Mass. Nope
San Deigo State Nope
UNLV Nope
New Mexico Nope
Fresno State (Hello Rutgers. )
Troy Nope
Army
BYU
Sacramento State Nope
McNeese State Nope
Furman Nope

Lol, how has UTSA made a name for themselves. Giving out free chicken is starting to wear off......

A couple of years ago, ESPN had an alert of an Upset when they gave Okie State problems.
This year and last, UTSA almost beat Arizona.

(10-08-2015 04:40 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 02:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 01:12 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Posted this in the other thread, but the moves suggest to me, the big reason for the one team from a power 5 conference rule was for TV reasons more so than strength of schedule. Those games are more appealing in general so they wanted to guarentee some.

That's more of a general rule than an absolute though. The armed service academies are big brands themselves even if have a football ceiling. UConn is the flagship of a big state and a well known name because of basketball. Cincinnati has had a lot of recent success. Boise State I expect will be accepted too.

In short, this wasn't an attempt to really differeniate between power 5 conferences and non, but that label was simply a convienent starting place to try to get stronger schedules for TV. If teams outside those 5 conferences fit the general mold to deliver the same results, the conference will go for it.

I think its pretty clear its all about TV. Service academies get good ratings.

I'd like to see some data on that, because if it were so then explain why Army and Navy are buried on CBS Sports except for the inter-academy games and Notre Dame.

It would be hard to prove because CBS has owned the Navy/Army games for quite sometime. They pay something crazy like $10 million for that one game at the end of the year and own the rights to both throughout the rest of the season.
Good rating are relative. Better than most G5 teams and better than the wakes, dukes, Illinois, Vandys, WSU's of the world if all things are equal(same team, same time slot, ect..)
But they never are.
ECU played in the highest rated game on ESPNU for 2 time slots 3:30 and 7pm last year
976K watched USC vs ECU While Clemson UNC in the same time slot at a later date only drew 680K (7pm ESPNU 2014)
682K watched ECU vs UNC while Clemson NCSU in the same time slot only drew 445K(3:30 game ESPNU2014)
These things are not fluid. Based on this it would appear that Clemson is not much of a draw or Klempson/NCSUx fans dont have that cable's with ESPNU's.

Or Alabama/OSU/Texas/ND/FSU was playing in your teams time slot.

(10-08-2015 02:04 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 02:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  EDIT: I do see that none of the service academies have any home games scheduled against Big Ten schools as of now. That's a common link between BYU, Cincinnati and UConn, though. Maybe the Big Ten is simply granting that status to the service academies to be politically correct.

Shouldn't the B10 be granting that status to the MAC? The MAC is the conference that is putting in work against the B10.

This is a good question.

If the rule was B1G had to play 1 non-conference against a P5, service academy or a MAC school that would set standards while allowing latitude for the Indiana's and Purdue's out there that need all the help they can get for wins.