(11-23-2019 03:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-23-2019 01:58 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-23-2019 01:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-23-2019 10:43 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-23-2019 09:53 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Handing half of your conference an automatic win while handing the other half an automatic loss means you have gained absolutely nothing in the long run. At least with the extra OOC game you have an opportunity for a majority, if not all, of your conference teams to pick up a win while weakening the resume of another conference. Granted, you could lose all of the extra games but at least the conference has the opportunity to make gains instead of the assured .500.

There’s very few teams who play 9 conference games and play two quality OOC games. When the ACC tried to stupidly go to 9 games it wasn’t the cupcake games teams dropped, it was the P5 games. Clemson dropped series with Ole Miss and Oklahoma State in order to maintain seven home games and the revenue they bring in for the school.

It does you little good to have five home games next year when your roster is built for this year when you have four home games.

If your argument is that a conference has a roughly equal chance of having a winning record OOC as they do a losing one, how is that better than a guaranteed 0.500?

If a power conference has 9 conference games, then it doesn't need as many OOC power games as a conference with only 8 games.

Some teams will be good in the years they have 5 home conference games, some teams won't, some will be good when they have 4, some won't. It all evens out.

When was the last time a team that played nine conference games won a playoff game?

At least with 8 conference games and four OOC you have a chance to strengthen your conference’s ranking. With 9/3 you gain absolutely nothing. For every Ohio State/Illinois game you get far more Rutgers/Minnesota and Maryland/Iowa type games that even the fans of the two teams don’t particularly care about. Instead we could be seeing an Illinois/Missouri or an Iowa/Oklahoma type game, something that draws real interest.

You're moving the goal posts now. In any case, there have only been 5 years of the CFP, so it's a poor sample size. Your argument is more against the generally weak performance of most Big Ten teams rather than their 9-game conference schedule.

Performances we wouldn’t have had to endure had their records not been enhanced by wins earned against inferior Big 10 opponents instead of being tested OOC.

The strength of conferences and programs increases and decreases over time. Right now the SEC is quite strong. If your argument against the Big Ten playing 9 games is that there are too many weak teams in the conference, then you'd have to be in favor of 9 games for the SEC. More games between strong teams than against relatively weak OOC opponents.