How a TV Show and a Lottery Can Fix College Football’s Non-Conference Scheduling Problem

Instead, why not have a central authority create out-of-conference schedules2 as balanced as possible? And while you’re at it, why not make a spectacle out of the process the way the World Cup does? Entrust non-conference scheduling to a draw system. This would produce randomized schedules all roughly the same degree of difficulty, just five-to-six months in advance of the season.



At the conclusion of the season, use some set of rankings3 to divide the 1304 FBS teams into three tiers of 28 and one of 46. Teams ranked 1-28 go into Tier 1, 29-56 in Tier 2, 57-84 in Tier 3, 85-130 in Tier 4. The previous season’s CFP playoff teams are seeded 1-4, but from there the teams are sorted in descending order purely by ranking.

Members of each tier will play randomly-assigned opponents from a designated tier during a designated week. For example, T1 teams will play a team from T4 in Week 1, from T2 in Week 2, T3 in Week 3, and go against a fellow T1 school in Week 4. Due to the number of teams, not all T4s will play an opponent from each tier, but they will all play one week against an FCS school in order to preserve the flow of money between the two subdivisions.

https://andrewelsass.com/draw-scheduling...t-version/

This would be at the expense of a lot of annual OOC rivalries. I'd settle for standard scheduling guidelines for P5s:

10 P5 opponents
2 G5 opponents
0 FCS opponents

No Scheduling G5s in November.

(10-26-2018 05:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  This would be at the expense of a lot of annual OOC rivalries. I'd settle for standard scheduling guidelines for P5s:

10 P5 opponents
2 G5 opponents
0 FCS opponents

No Scheduling G5s in November.

+1. The 10 P5s would be the same whether 8 or 9 conference games.

FCS games should be played instead of Spring games, IMO.

Spring games are a very old tradition, and I kinda like them too. Keeps the starters on their toes, and allows backups to measure how good they are against the starters. However, I wouldn’t mind a preseason game held in the spring also against an FCS opponent that would not count in any standings. It would have the same significance as a spring game, just against FCS competition.

(10-26-2018 05:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  This would be at the expense of a lot of annual OOC rivalries. I'd settle for standard scheduling guidelines for P5s:

10 P5 opponents
2 G5 opponents
0 FCS opponents

No Scheduling G5s in November.

The only possible reason for standardizing scheduling is to have a better basis for comparing potential playoff teams. It's one thing to want playoff contenders to have roughly even schedule difficulty, but I don't see any reason to care whether teams that have no shot at contention schedule 10 P5 games.

(10-28-2018 03:06 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 05:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  This would be at the expense of a lot of annual OOC rivalries. I'd settle for standard scheduling guidelines for P5s:

10 P5 opponents
2 G5 opponents
0 FCS opponents

No Scheduling G5s in November.

The only possible reason for standardizing scheduling is to have a better basis for comparing potential playoff teams. It's one thing to want playoff contenders to have roughly even schedule difficulty, but I don't see any reason to care whether teams that have no shot at contention schedule 10 P5 games.

...and I wouldn't have a problem saying that you're not eligible for the CFP unless you play 10 P5 games. That leaves it up to the schools to decide. Of course, I pity the AD who tells his boosters they aren't in contention for the championship.

I like our OOC scheduling philosophy and don't want to see it change for some random BS that makes no sense whatsoever just to please fans of other schools who can't win enough games to make the playoff.

There is only one fix, assigned schedules. Anything else is just a waste of time to even contemplate.

Yeah, and nobody will like that. Sheesh, if you thought Georgia & Oklahoma v. NCAA was something (the court case allowing schools & conferences to make their own tv deals), you ain’t seen nothing yet, to quote the song.

The best thing the NCAA could do is to tweak bowl eligibility once again, not allowing any FCS opponents, but both FBS & FCS ADs will really howl over that one. But, the NCAA does need to establish a baseline requirement for scheduling. Also mandate that for P5’s, they must also schedule at least one P5 OOC. The P5 would probably ignore that though.

(10-26-2018 05:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  No Scheduling G5s in November.

Not picking on you, but I’ve never heard a good explanation for this argument. Why is it a big deal?

(10-29-2018 09:18 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 05:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  No Scheduling G5s in November.

Not picking on you, but I’ve never heard a good explanation for this argument. Why is it a big deal?

I don't get it either. What difference does it make if you play an OOC opponent in the first few weeks or in November?

Also, a lot of those G5 opponents are better on the field than Rutgers, Illinois and Indiana.

(10-29-2018 09:24 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 09:18 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 05:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  No Scheduling G5s in November.

Not picking on you, but I’ve never heard a good explanation for this argument. Why is it a big deal?

I don't get it either. What difference does it make if you play an OOC opponent in the first few weeks or in November?

Also, a lot of those G5 opponents are better on the field than Rutgers, Illinois and Indiana.

I think part of it is just what seems "normal" for your team and your conference. Muskie is an Ohio St fan and Big Ten schools never schedule OOC games after week 5 or 6. SEC and some ACC schools on the other hand play more September conference games and thus have to spread out their non conference games; playing one in November is very normal.

South Carolina won't play an FCS school the Saturday before Thanksgiving next year, but we do play App State on November 9. This year we play Chattanooga in November and will be playing a G5 team in a make up game in December !

(10-29-2018 09:18 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 05:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  No Scheduling G5s in November.

Not picking on you, but I’ve never heard a good explanation for this argument. Why is it a big deal?

The reason you have never heard a good explanation for that argument is that there is none. It is just something SEC haters like to harp on.

I have no issue with a P5 school being permitted to play one FCS school per season. There are reasons to do so beyond scheduling an opponent deemed to be an easy win. The FCS school may desperately need the pay-out to survive. The FCS school is seeking upward mobility and exposure. When it is an in-state opponent, it can appeal to local (state-wide) fans and may be considered a bit of a rivalry while helping the FCS school in revenue. Such games may be well attended, stadium-wise. Also, sometimes it is a scheduling matter. The P5 school has an open date that they seek for a seventh or so home game, and cannot find a preferred FBS school available for the conditions set. Additionally, there can be late cancellations due to contract back-outs and what's available to choose from is slim.


With the above said, P5 schools should be reasonable in an FCS choice with a sense of some compatibility, and not select a school that has no means to show any competitiveness. Thus, as an hypothetical example, Alabama need not invite Presbyterian to their schedule. Top twenty type powerhouses should avoid FCS picks for scheduling where possible.

Getting back to the premise of the OP, exactly what scheduling problem does college football have (other than only having time for 12 regular season games and having 130 FBS teams)?

(10-29-2018 02:24 PM)ken d Wrote:  Getting back to the premise of the OP, exactly what scheduling problem does college football have (other than only having time for 12 regular season games and having 130 FBS teams)?

The only "problem" is the fact that a couple conferences thought it would be smart to play 9 conference games without thinking that it means that you assure that half of your conference is going to have an additional loss. Because the SEC and ACC were wise enough to stick to 8 conference games (although the ACC wanted a 9th initially) the conferences that were are butthurt that they didn't follow them into foolishness and want to force the issue.

(10-29-2018 12:55 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  When it is an in-state opponent, it can appeal to local (state-wide) fans and may be considered a bit of a rivalry while helping the FCS school in revenue.

This is kind of where I see it. Just in my experience, South Carolina games against The Citadel or Wofford have actually been better attended that games against random Sun Belt or CUSA teams because so many of those fans will travel to Columbia and many SC fans are actually graduates of those schools.

I wouldn’t mind if ‘Bama or Auburn played an in-state FCS like Samford or Jax State, but they never do. It’s always too much lose, to little to gain. I would not mind if UGA played Kennesaw or Mercer. Shoot, I wouldn’t mind a game vs Georgia Southern or Georgia State. But apparently our AD follows the same line of thinking as ‘Bama and Auburn.

(10-29-2018 02:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 02:24 PM)ken d Wrote:  Getting back to the premise of the OP, exactly what scheduling problem does college football have (other than only having time for 12 regular season games and having 130 FBS teams)?

The only "problem" is the fact that a couple conferences thought it would be smart to play 9 conference games without thinking that it means that you assure that half of your conference is going to have an additional loss. Because the SEC and ACC were wise enough to stick to 8 conference games (although the ACC wanted a 9th initially) the conferences that were are butthurt that they didn't follow them into foolishness and want to force the issue.

And the vast majority of SEC and ACC schools already play 9 P caliber games. What difference does it make if it is in conference or out of conference? Yes Auburn plays 8 SEC games but who else in the nation played Clemson and Washington for their 9th P game? It sure as hell wasn't the Big 10 schools who feast on MAC and week PAC schools for the first 4 games of the season.

(10-29-2018 07:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 02:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 02:24 PM)ken d Wrote:  Getting back to the premise of the OP, exactly what scheduling problem does college football have (other than only having time for 12 regular season games and having 130 FBS teams)?

The only "problem" is the fact that a couple conferences thought it would be smart to play 9 conference games without thinking that it means that you assure that half of your conference is going to have an additional loss. Because the SEC and ACC were wise enough to stick to 8 conference games (although the ACC wanted a 9th initially) the conferences that were are butthurt that they didn't follow them into foolishness and want to force the issue.

And the vast majority of SEC and ACC schools already play 9 P caliber games. What difference does it make if it is in conference or out of conference? Yes Auburn plays 8 SEC games but who else in the nation played Clemson and Washington for their 9th P game? It sure as hell wasn't the Big 10 schools who feast on MAC and week PAC schools for the first 4 games of the season.

Rutgers? They played Washington the past 2 years when they were actually good, unlike this year.