Talkin' Bad Idea Blues
by KevinHD on Apr 7, 2009 12:20 PM EDT
in Football
Email
Print
Pete Fiutak has had enough and he's not going to take it anymore! He's tired of your traditions, your history, your desire for variety; enough is enough he tells ya, enough is enough!
Hey, Big Ten, enough is enough.
Okay, I'll save the fisks for another day, but it's getting late and something needs to be put to bed:
You’re not going to take on Notre Dame (or Notre Dame doesn’t want to join you) and you’re not going to play a gimmicky championship game. However, you need to finally make a change and decide your championship on the field by using a round-robin format.
More after the jump...
Why a lack of "gimmicky" scheduling means a change is in order might be a commentary on the sad state of our now TV driven football, but I can't stress enough how completely (1) unrealistic, and (2) boring a Big Ten round-robin would be.
I'm pretty sure this same article is published weekly by football writers from every city except those within The Footprint. It takes a certain amount of ignorance, usually fueled by the champ games of the South and East or seemingly complete schedules of the West, to look at the Big Ten and conclude things aren't being decided "on the field".
But everyone else, with their fully weaved web and gimmicky championship games...they know what they're doing!
[via Statesman]
That's right ladies and gentlemen, as you may have heard Texas has literally and with shaped numbers claimed the 2008 Big XII Championship. Never mind that they didn't even win their own division (a title decided by a round-robin!) and therefore didn't even play in the conference championship game; if it says so on a wall it has to be true. Alabama would be proud.
So since teams who don't even play in the title games can somehow win entire leagues, there must be something to this whole full-on, round-robin thing everyone pats the Pac-10 on the back for putting up with.
Well I guess that's the ticket then, you just play everyone and then there is no possible situatio-- what?!
The nine game schedule didn't start in the Pac-10 until 2006, the first year of this screen shot. Now, you're thinking "head-to-head!" and yeah of course there is head-to-head, but the possibility for a three team tie is still highly likely (see above, the 1996 Big East standings, or the 2000 Purdue team). And besides using tie-breakers, however simple, still compromises the process.
And then there is this: the season would be boring. Purdue, Michigan State and Michigan are unlikely to give up their games with ND, even with the OOC reduction, meaning they will play literally the same exact schedule each year save one interchangeable I-aa program. The rest of us would probably end up with even less, getting perhaps one decent OOC game every couple of years...all so we can get the SOS boost from Northwestern and Indiana.
Enter shortsighted comment that assumes we know who is going to be any good this year (background: we don't), and that it will all lead to disaster:
This year, Michigan, who always has to play Ohio State and Michigan State, misses Minnesota and Northwestern, while Purdue gets to bypass Iowa and Penn State, two of the main contenders for the Big Ten title. Illinois doesn’t have to play Iowa or Wisconsin, the Badgers miss Penn State, and worst of all, Michigan State and Ohio State, two of the four best teams in the league this year (Penn State and Iowa being the other two), don’t play.
While it is a shame that not everyone can play everyone all the time (Carl Sandburg said that), a quick look around suggests it won't actually solve anything (I said that).
63 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Here in ACC Land
All of my coworkers give me crap over the Big Ten not having a championship game, or at least a “complete” conference schedule. And I counter with the fact that their format is just as flawed. Most of them are Virginia Tech fans, and they claim their schedule is tougher because they have to play an extra game, the conference championship, against the supposed #1 or #2 best team in the conference. So then I have to calmly explain that rather than making their road to the BCS harder, it actually makes it easier. And it’s easy to do since Tech is a prime example the past 2 seasons. During their regular season matchups with BC, they crap the bed and lose. But due to the structure of the conference, they only need to perform better than the 5 other teams in their division to get a crack at winning the entire conference. They ride the strugglebus past those 5 tin cans into the championship game, and get another chance at Boston College.
You take the same situation in the Big Ten, and more often than not, you lose that one regular season conference game to Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, or any other front runner of the pack of TEN teams and you don’t get another shot. You blew it and your consolation prize is the Motor City Bowl. Enjoy Detroit.
In the Big Ten, you’ve got to do better than ALL 10 teams in the conference, not just the 5 in your division and the other division’s championship game representative. If you don’t go undefeated or have more than 1 loss in conference play, chances are, you’re screwed. But the Chokies can get slapped around 4 or 5 times and just because they didn’t suck near as bad as the rest of the clowns, they get another crack at a BCS berth.
I like our system and it doesn’t bother me. If I’d change one thing, it’s the tiebreaker rules. If MSU, OSU, and PSU were all tied last year, MSU would’ve gone to the RB just because they hadn’t been there for the longest time. I’d prefer to first look at who played the least amount of I-AA teams, and give them the shot.
Luring recruits with my new "Posting HD" scheme since '08.
I agree that the Championship system makes it easier
to get to a BCS bowl, however, I think it’s a nightmare for those who are making an MNC run. That extra game, against the va techs (ha ha ha, wait, i have to stop laughing at the idea that an ACC team would be making an MNC run), kansas states, and/or lsus of the world, is what drives coaches wiggy.
I don’t like the “championship” game – keep it away.
Agreed
Sure the “experts” always talk about always talk about how a win in a championship game could give you a boost in the rankings, but it seems like many more teams have been bumped from the MNC by losing (2001 Tennessee and 98 Kansas State for example). Plus, last years SEC championship where it was 2 top ranked teams was a rarity. Most championship games in the SEC and the Big 12 have been an elite team against a middle of the pack team. It’s usually a game that most of us can live without.
1-AA Tiebreaker
Unfortunately, I believe that this offseason the Big Ten entirely got rid of the tiebreaker item about the number of 1-AA games played. I think that was a bad decision, because it only promotes more flotsam and jetsam on the OOC schedule.
I blame Tim Curley.
Let's Go State!
They did use the 1-AA opponent count as tiebreaker last year
Funny enough, that would have favored MSU.
Which is why
I believe they took it out this year. They realize the PSU’s, OSU’s, and Michigans have to schedule I-AA opponents, so they can’t punish the big boys in the conference.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
Obsession with "who's the best"
I think our system is completely whacked, but so are all the other conferences’ systems. It’s NCAAF, it’s a mess, and I love it. I love the bowl games, I love that you usually have to be perfect to be considered for the NC game, I love that one regular season loss dooms most teams from contention. I don’t love what happened in 1994 — but on some level I’d rather have that than what Florida had in 2008: a good season, a NC season, but not a perfect season. Give me perfect, you can keep your MNC.
You know what would make me happy? Keep the current system, and rule out a conference co-champion if those teams played each other. You know, so the Buckeyes can quit claiming they won something in 2005 and 2008 when clearly they did not. Start with that.
"We hugged as grown men do. It was a great moment. Then, it was business as usual." -- LJ Sr.
Yeah
Forgot about that. THAT’s the first thing I’d fix. Let the head-to-head result during conference play count. Co-championships like that make us look like rubes to the rest of the nation. OSU has no right to claim those titles.
Luring recruits with my new "Posting HD" scheme since '08.
The Big Ten's problem...
… as currently configured, is that it’s possible to have a two-way tie between teams that haven’t played. Which has happened almost fairly often since Penn State joined the Big Ten (before then, you were only missing one team a year, and Ohio State and Michigan — who always played — were dominant for much of the time).
There’s elegant nothing to be done about three-way ties, especially if they rock-paper-scissors each other ala the Big 12 South. However, two-way ties ought to be able to be resolved by head-to-head (either due to a regular season contest or a moneygrap conference championship game). There’s no plausible fix for it, though; ND is unlikely to join a football conference, the Big Ten is unlikely to raid a Big 12 or Big East school (or promote a MAC school), and Penn State is unlikely to consult a map and join the Big East.
Ties between teams that haven't played only happened twice in 16 seasons
In 1996 Northwestern and Ohio State did not play, and each went 7-1 in conference play.
In 2002 Iowa and Ohio State did not play, and each went 9-0 in conference play.
In every other year, Big Ten “Co-Champions” would have been reduced to one if we instituted head-to-head rules to determine a sole champion (not counting when Ohio State and Wisconsin played to a tie in 1993, which will never happen again).
Ludicrous idea: A Big Ten Championship game will be played ONLY in the event of a two-way tie.
I wish
“IF” statements could be applied to college football. It would solve all our problems more so than a playoff. I wish there was some language like this:
If at the completion of the bowls there are teams from the 6 auto-bid BCS conferences (and/or an undefeated team from a non-BCS conference) with the same record (best record) remaining without a clearly superior team, a playoff shall occur to determine a champion. If 4 teams remain there shall be 3 games, if there are 2 teams, 1 game and so on. If an odd number of teams remain the highest ranked team shall receive a bye.
For example, this past season 4 teams remained that had a championship claim. Florida, USC, Texas and Utah. So for instance Florida should play Utah and USC should play Texas and then the winners would play for the championship.
An example for a year when this system is not needed was the 2005 season when Texas beat USC and was the clear champion as the only undefeated team.
The problem with this method which I see as a perfect solution is since these games are “if’s” it would be tough logistically and tougher to get sponsors to commit if there is a chance a game might not take place.
Sorry to disagree, but this would not work
because if UF, USC and UT are in the discussion, PSU and TTU should also be. What makes UF’s loss to Ole Miss any less bad than our loss to (I blame) Iowa?
I bleed Blue and White.
by Horse N Buggy on Apr 7, 2009 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Since he's not listing Oklahoma...
… I’m assuming he’s arguing for a post-Bowls playoff. Oklahoma, PSU and Texas Tech get eliminated due to bowl game losses. So was Boise, for that matter. Pre-bowls last year a fair playoff needed 9 teams (the one-loss BCS conference schools - Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, Penn State, and USC -- and the undefeated mid-majors — Utah and Boise State).
Oh, that makes sense.
I bleed Blue and White.
by Horse N Buggy on Apr 7, 2009 9:52 PM EDT up reply actions
"Co-Champions"
And in those two situations how elegant was the solution? The team that has not been to the Rose Bowl in the longest time gets to go. It’s perfect.
I got that neither went to Rose Bowl in 2002, but Iowa should have gotten to go, and that would have been fine by me.
"I honestly think the "Spread HD" is going to work pretty well, and we’ll be just fine this year". - 8-27-2008
From a statistics perspective
I’d imagine increasing the number of OOC games against I-A opponents would decrease the error in most BCS computer rankings.
Meh
Only if it’s the right OOC opponents. Increasing connection internal to the Big 10, to the MAC, and to ND does absolutely nothing. Statistically, Round Robin formats are way overkill. You can figure out the “best” team (i.e. the one with highest “true strength”) with very good accuracy with 8 games or so for 11 teams.
It sometimes makes fans happy, but as Kevin pointed out, it’s a completely superficial happiness.
by Bleed Blue 'n White on Apr 8, 2009 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Round Robin would suck
If we played all ten Big Ten teams that leaves only two out of conference games. Since we’re giving up a home game in favor of an additional conference game on the road, you can kiss any decent non-conference game goodbye. We’ll never play teams like Alabama, Nebraska, USC, or Notre Dame again. Penn State will have to ensure two home games, so it’ll be just more of the same with Temple, Akron, and Coastal Carolina.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
Big Ten (11) can't have a title game anyway...
From what I understand of the NCAA rules, no conference with less than 12 teams can have a championship game. If that is in fact true, than that rule negates all of this. We would have to pick up a 12th team before we could even consider a championship game.
by Domin8ing the Big Ten(11) on Apr 7, 2009 2:45 PM EDT reply actions
But…but..ZOMG ND
Never mind that they already play in the Big East for other major sports, yada yada yada.
BTW, so if Texas can claim a Big XII championship like that, why can’t we claim an MNC for years like ‘94. We’ll pretend BSD existed then and crowned them the champions. Or call up Bush Sr. and see if he’d release an edict to that effect. (I feel like I should shout “TURN THOSE MACHINES BACK ON” here)
Penn Staters belong at Penn State. The problem with a lot of kids is they just don’t know they are Penn Staters yet.
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
by TheK-GunNeedsReloaded on Apr 7, 2009 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions
For the record
They took that sign down. Still paid the assistants as if they had won the conference, though.
I would be in favor of championship games for all conferences ONLY if there was a playoff system to determine the national champion. Make all conferences have two divisions and the winner of each division plays for the conference title. Winner of the conference title then plays in the playoff tournament consisting of all the other conference champions. Given the way college football conferences are presently constructed, this would seem to be the fairest way of deciding matters “on the field.” Sure you might get the occasional FSU 2005 Orange Bowl bid, but that’s sports. No one in the NFL seemed to cry about San Diego making the playoffs at 8-8 last year while 11-5 New England was left at home. And in the end those kinds of teams won’t last long in a playoff more than likely.
As it is presently constructed there is no perfect solution to crowning a conference champion. As it was outlined above, having two divisions and a conference championship game didn’t solve anything for the Big 12 this year and the round robin hasn’t cleared things up in the Pac-10 for two out of the three years it has existed. I also agree the Big 10’s way of deciding things leaves a lot to be desired as well. The unfortunate thing is that every conference is different because of NCAA rules, the number of teams in each conference and the BCS bowl system combined with money convolute things.
As was stated above if you make every Big 10 team play each other you eliminate two OOC games. Every team, not just Penn State, will schedule Div II, MAC and low level teams to get 7 home games (PSU isn’t the only school with a budget problem) which will only lead to more criticism of the Big 10’s ability to compete with the other conferences. Adding a 12th team would be a fine idea, but someone needs to identify who that 12th team is. Notre Dame is not joining a conference for football, unless NBC drops its TV contract (a possibility I suppose given their recent suckitude) with them. Adding Ball State or another MAC team will only lead to more criticism to the competition level of the conference. The only other solutions involve raiding another conference. I still love the idea of luring Pitt out of the Big East.
No way of doing things is more right than the other in this case.
Pitt from the Big East
I doubt you will see that happen. They are enjoying the basketball success too much. Same with Syracuse. But we might be able to lure Rutgers or West Virginia to the Big Ten.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
by BSD on Apr 7, 2009 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions
WVU = Never happen
Academic disaster.
"Never. We would never shoot nuclear weapons at Decepticons." -- Gen. Jack Jacobs
by Run Up The Score on Apr 7, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Meh no thanks on Rutgers
Maybe in 30 years if they can upper level team for that long, but right now, no way. They haven’t done jack. Their Athletic department is freakin rogue and they can’t pay for anything.
Kath?
IF this happens in the next 5-8 yrs, I’d have to think it’d be Pitt, Missouri, or Syracuse. As RUTS said, Big xi presidents veto WVU. Big XII might consider swapping Missouri for TCU. Enough $ in TX to buy TCU’s way into that conference. That does nothing for you guys (Pitt, even Syracuse, makes more sense and no way Iowa State – horrible football attendance, on par with jNW) but I think 12 is a matter of when.
Another team to consider
Cincinnati is becoming respectable lately. They also have a pretty decent basketball tradition. If they could keep that up it might be a big market that Delany would find difficult to resist.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
by BSD on Apr 7, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions
I like the Cincinnati idea
But I don’t get whats wrong with getting a team that has performed solidly in the MAC and is good academically. USF rose quickly once in the Big East, Louisville was in Conference USA and they are good now. We will never be able to add a team the quality of us, UM, OSU, or Wisc. However if we added a Ball St or W. Mich or Miami OH or Toledo or Buffalo, I have no reason to believe they would not be able to compete at least on the level of say Illinois or Purdue, it may take a couple years but they definitely would not be worse than Indiana.
I think the only way we get this extra team in the forseeable future is if it comes from the lower tier conferences, the Big East would try to prevent further raiding, we know whats up with ND and Missouri has their solid rivalrys in the Big 12
"They ain't got the tradition to hold our nuts." - Deon Butler
Hard to feel bad for the Big East
They readily admit that football is just something to pass the time in the fall until basketball starts. They are a basketball first conference and always will be. They have 8 or 9 teams in their league that don’t compete in football. UConn put together a team a few years ago and became competitive almost instantly. If the Big East wants to expand to 12 teams, all they have to do is twist some arms and throw around a little cash.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
by BSD on Apr 7, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions
A few reasons
1 You think anybody wants to play games at Nippert Stadium? HINT: They don’t.
2 Ohio State would never let another Ohio school into the league.
3 The Big Ten is adament about expanding markets. I think they have a pretty reasonable market share in Cincinnatii already.
4 There is no way that Cincinnati (or Ball St, W. Mich., Miami Univ., Toledo or Buffalo for that fact) have [a] the existing facitilites to meet Big Ten Standards (Penn State didn’t) or the financial means to upgreade their facilities (which Penn State did/does have).
5 None of those schools meet the Big Ten’s academic standards.
The best answer for the 12th member is Maryland. But still won’t happen, they are too into basketball now. It might have worked when they got Penn State though. The Big Ten was/is too hung up on Notre Dame for them to ever pull the trigger on a 12th team.
"I honestly think the "Spread HD" is going to work pretty well, and we’ll be just fine this year". - 8-27-2008
Not that I advocate the idea
… except when I get crazy and start redrawing all conferences, which always ends up with you guys in the northeastern-based conference with us (that’s Syracuse), Pitt, BC, UConn, and Rutgers (others depend how big the conference is), but point #1 is silly; they’d play Big Ten games at Paul Brown Stadium (at least against Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan anyway).
I realize that this whole argument is moot
However, from my perspective(hypothetically of course) ND is the only really good fit, geographically, competitively and academically. If they are an absolute no go, then there are very few other options that fit goegraphically AND competitively AND academically.
So if ND is absolutely out of the picture and we are 100% set on getting someone, they would be lacking in one of the categories, or mediocre in all.
There are plenty of geographic options, and if one of them is a MAC school, I feel the facility/fan interest/quality of play could be helped by joining the Big Ten via extra revenue, better recruiting(from ceonference affiliation), better bowl ties, etc, etc.
I just feel as though the big ten will never have a twelvth team, I feel like it is more likely PSU would leave the conference than have one added, in order for any of this to happen, there would have to be a huge shakeup, and as I said before, moot point, never gonna happen, but still fun to picture.
Blah Blah, I make little sense I know
"They ain't got the tradition to hold our nuts." - Deon Butler
The BT isn't going to lower the average
so to speak, by bringing one someone who doesn’t increase revenue/school. So when you take all the academic qualifiers and find ones that bring more to the table than, say, Iowa, it’s cowboy slim pickins.
Plus they have to ‘increase the market’ as they say, meaning no one in The Footprint is worth it expect for ND.
I know it’s the long view, but I’m convinced and have been since ND looked like they were at least considering a cave five or six years ago that they will one day be forced to join a football conference. My money is on the Big Ten waiting it out.
Black Shoe Diaries
I BLAME IOWA.
Don't, Can't and Won't
Understand why NBC is not totally pushing Notre Dame into the Big Ten so they can expand their football coverage. If the Big Ten is valuable to ABC, why wouldn’t the the Big Ten plus Notre Dame be substantially more valuable to NBC? They literally televise rodeo.
Right now NBC only gets Notre Dame home games. If ND joined the league and the league partnered with NBC for two games a week (picture a 1 and a 4:30 game every week) they would actually get more Notre Dame football, because they could televise the road games too. Roll that together with an 8:00 BTN game and it’s a pretty cool football package if you ask me.
I can’t imagine that a similar package couldn’t be worked out for basketball as well.
"I honestly think the "Spread HD" is going to work pretty well, and we’ll be just fine this year". - 8-27-2008
Why isn’t the Pac 10 at the head of the line screaming about having to play the Big Ten Champ every year?
I suspect it’s because Delany is so much more of a public figure, where the Pac-10 kind of keeps the front office out of the spotlight. And man, if only he knew the damage he would do with that one stupid "open letter".
Black Shoe Diaries
I BLAME IOWA.
though I'm sure something could always be worked out
I don’t think ABC (or BTN) would be too happy at giving up any games to NBC. I don’t know when either the Big-10/ABC or the Notre Dame/NBC (I think they reupped for another 10 years or so) expires, but yeah, I’m sure that’s a major hurdle.
What I could see as a workaround was if ND was allowed to join the conference and keep their NBC contract for their home games only (and heck, even allowed to renew the deal in the future). ABC then would keep their Big 10 contract. No one loses anything they have in the current situation, but NBC would then get to televise more Big 10 games (when @ ND), and ABC would get to televise more ND games (when @ other Big 10 schools). It seems win/win for everyone, but I’m sure ABC would be greedy and start bitching about how they are losing out on potential $ they would have gained if ND was just a part of the Big 10 umbrella contract, even though they’d be making more money than they previously were.
by The JuggerNitt on Apr 8, 2009 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions
My idea presumes
That all Big Ten games would be on NBC or the BTN with ESPN picking up other games as they choose like the SEC. Basicly a deal similar to what the SEC does, CBS gets first choice than ESPN can take others.
If there is a 10 year contract with ABC/ESPN, that would be a problem.
"I honestly think the "Spread HD" is going to work pretty well, and we’ll be just fine this year". - 8-27-2008
The MAC teams aren't interesting to the Big Ten
for the same reason they’re not interesting to the Big East. No fan support for football. The irony was that we grabbed Cinci figuring it would be yet another urban good basketball/okay football school, and it’s been the other way around for the most part.
There’s a reason why the Usual Suspects for Big East expansion candidates are East Carolina, UCF, and Memphis.
Freakin smart people
Always ruining everything.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
by BSD on Apr 7, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions
“Every team, not just Penn State, will schedule Div II, MAC and low level teams to get 7 home games (PSU isn’t the only school with a budget problem).”
Big Ten teams are doing that NOW. There were 44 OOC games for the 11 Big Ten teams last year—exactly 13 were against BCS teams.
I don’t understand how the Pac-10 can play 9 conference games and still put together a robust non-conference schedule (14 BCS teams for 30 slots as well as some top 25 non-BCS teams) while the Big Ten can’t?
Hmm, lets see
UCLA: Good at every sport, a basketball powerhouse, doesn’t need football to make all the money
Stanford: Also good at every sport, similar situation to UCLA
Cal: The more big games they have the more exposure they of their plight of the hippies in the trees
USC: ESPN gets on their knees for them
Az St.: Hot chicks
Az: More hot chicks
Oregon: Phil Knight just handed them another check
Oregon State: Beavers?
Wash: Purple?
Wazzu: No ones gonna come out to bumblef*ck Washington anyway so lets play Notre Dame in Texas.
There is a sentiment in the spots world..
that the Pac 10 is simply ass backward. They have a lousy TV contract, shitty bowl tie ins, and were the last to the party on the confrence basketball tournament. They are in many ways more stodgy and roooted in tradition than the Big Ten (Why isn’t the Pac 10 at the head of the line screaming about having to play the Big Ten Champ every year?). It’s like they don’t care.
"I honestly think the "Spread HD" is going to work pretty well, and we’ll be just fine this year". - 8-27-2008
I don't think you can simplify it like that
just saying X # of BCS teams vs X # of non BCS teams. There are plenty of terrible BCS teams(Indiana, Washington, Baylor, Duke, Iowa St, Syracuse, etc) and Non BCS teams better than said bad BCS teams (Utah, TCU, Boise St, BYU, Tulsa, Hawaii, Fresno St, etc). Also is ND included in your calculations as BCS, because they play multiple Big Ten teams a year.
I’m not saying the Big Ten schedules the best, PSU has the WORST schedule next year and the big ten in general lacks that. However, Wisconsin playing Fresno St is better than USC playing Virginia. It can be quanified simply as BCS vs Non BCS.
Tangent- I wonder if anyone has made up a chart of teams quality when scheduled and then their quality when the game actually happens i.e. PSU scheduled syracuse off of a what? 9 win season, and when game time comes, they are awful. Its not an excuse, but interesting at least to me.
"They ain't got the tradition to hold our nuts." - Deon Butler
Another Tangent
Personally, I have no qualms with a 1 big time game, 2 mid BCS teams/decent MAC teams and 1 bottom feeder schedule. It is about the only way to balance home game money and still have a respectable OOC.
For Example (for PSU)
Alabama
Maryland
C Mich
Temple
that would be passable for me, not 100% what I would want as a fan, but a fair compromise with what fans and the administration wants. IMO
"They ain't got the tradition to hold our nuts." - Deon Butler
I like this also
and RUTS does to because i remember his formula = national power + traditional eastern school + MAC + other crap team. Compared to a lot of other suggestions we hear (like the story linked above) it’s actually not completely impossible. If you could pay some of these eastern schools a little extra and get a 2-1 or 3-2 it just might happen.
Black Shoe Diaries
I BLAME IOWA.
Im glad someone is in agreement
I feel it is about the only logical way to meet revenue/home game requirements, still play traditional(at least area-wise) rivals, and keep a respectable ooc strength. I think we typically have done that, except recently and am I mistaken or was the Bama series originally for last year and this year and it being moved kind of dicked us over OOC wise for said seasons?
"They ain't got the tradition to hold our nuts." - Deon Butler
I thought that as well
but apparently it was actually for 2004-2005, but they wanted to postpone it because they were under some scholarship sanctions (or something to that effect)
by The JuggerNitt on Apr 8, 2009 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions
ND was included as a BCS team for the Big Ten. And if you look at the Pac-10’s non-conference schedule you will see a lot of quality WAC and MWC teams as well.
I don’t think you can look at the Big Ten’s non-conference schedule and credibly state it compares to the Pac-10’s in terms of quality. It’s not close. And when you add the Pac-10’s 9th conference game (which gives the conference 5 extra losses) the schedule difference becomes more pronounced.
The question remains the same—how come the majority of the Pac-10 teams can make the finances work and the Big Ten can’t?
Could be as simple as...
…they are willing to make less money off their football programs.
"I honestly think the "Spread HD" is going to work pretty well, and we’ll be just fine this year". - 8-27-2008
Pac-10
A big part of it is that the Pac-10 schools as a whole don’t draw as well for football. USC is an obvious exception and even they were a decidedly mediocre draw before the start of their dominance this decade (losing the NFL in LA helped too). Part of it is that the west coast isn’t as sports mad (or perhaps football mad) as the midwest, so the crowds only tend to occur for big games — bring in some loser WAC club (or 1-AA) and they simply won’t sell as many tickets. So, they need to make these 1-1 deals with name clubs to get good enough home games to sell tickets (esp season tickets).
Also, many of their stadiums are (relatively) small and thus are simply unable to generate enough money from “1 and done” games to pay the escalating guarantees for those games. Especially since the patsies would probably demand more money for such games because of travel costs (Pac-10 schools are pretty spread out and far from a lot of other schools unlike the Big Ten with tons of MAC teams around).
Huh? Are you trying to say that the Big Ten’s non-con schedule is markedly worse than the Pac-10s? Or the other way around? Over a 5-year average the number of BCS conference opponents the two conferences have faced is quite similar.
As for why the Pac-10 teams can make the finances work: USC. They’re the only school on the same level, money-wise, as the Big Ten teams, and they make a metric crapton of local game money due to an LA market starved for football.
by Bleed Blue 'n White on Apr 8, 2009 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Actual numbers here...
… suggest that it’s really Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State that skew things; other than that, the Big Ten and Pac 10 are quite similar in terms of attendance.
Rank School Games Total Average
1. Michigan 7 759,997 108,571
2. Penn St. 7 757,775 108,254
3. Ohio St. 7 734,830 104,976
15. Wisconsin 7 567,616 81,088
20. Michigan St. 7 524,005 74,858
22. Iowa 7 491,186 70,169
30. Illinois 6 370,243 61,707
35. Purdue 7 396,915 56,702
45. Minnesota 7 342,705 48,958
72. Indiana 8 254,255 31,782
79. Northwestern 7 200,132 28,590
11. Southern California 6 520,756 86,793
21. UCLA 7 509,563 72,795
28. Arizona St. 7 446,856 63,837
29. Washington 7 445,479 63,640
31. California 7 431,437 61,634
32. Oregon 6 350,661 58,444
40. Arizona 7 367,080 52,440
53. Oregon St. 6 269,584 44,931
67. Stanford 5 171,292 34,258
74. Washington St. 7 215,030 30,719
I don't think that's the best way to look at it
“if you take out the top third of our attendance schools, then we match up well with the Pac-10”.
Even if you set Michigan, Penn State, and Ohio State to be the same as Wisconsin’s addendance numbers (which are comparable to USC), the average attendance in the Big 10 is still ~6,000 more fans per game (and about 70,000 more fans over the season).
But yes, if you do want to remove the top third of the teams in the Big 10 the Big 10 still averages the same (actually 200 less) per game, and about 20,000 more over the season.
by The JuggerNitt on Apr 9, 2009 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Not sure what any of this means
What if Penn State, Michigan and Ohio State didn’t have a stadium attendance bigger dick contest going on? Frankly, we were fine in the mid-ninties range seat wise. Michigan was smaller than the Rose Bowl forever. Ohio State changed the whole structure of their stadium (it ain’t a horseshoe no more). Not to mention big renovation projects at Wisconsin, Illinois and even Indiana for gods sake.
Meanwhile the Rose Bowl, Stanford Stadium and the LA Coliseum all gave back seats in renovations. I think Husky Stadium did too. I know that the folks in Berkley tarp off whol sections of their stadium unless they are playing Stanford or USC. Oregon and Oregon State used their Nike money for renovations, but neither added tons of seats.
It doesn’t appear that anybody in the Pac Ten is playing to sell outs all season long except maybe USC. To the extent they are, it’s becuase their stadiums are small, and the ones that are not small by Big Ten standards all reduced capacity in recent years.
"I honestly think the "Spread HD" is going to work pretty well, and we’ll be just fine this year". - 8-27-2008
Nobody plays OOC schedules like the Pac 10 does...
… geography, the nine-game conference schedule, and that many Pac 10 fans won’t show up for games against low-quality opposition rather force the issue.
15 of the OOC games on their 2009 schedules are against BCS teams or ND. You might say the Big Ten has 14, not so different, right? Wrong. Two reasons – first, there are ten teams in the Pac 10, and eleven in the Big Ten. And second, there are three OOC games per team in the Pac 10 and 4 in the Big Ten. So that’s 15/30 (i.e. half of the OOC games Pac 10 schools play), not 14/44 (roughly a third of the games Big Ten schools play). And this wasn’t an anamoly, either; I got into a similar argument with an SEC fan on SI.com’s boards last fall, and the SEC’s played an even smaller percentage of its OOC games vs quality opposition than the Big 10 does (the 1/3 the Big Ten plays I’d say is really about right for most major conferences; the Pac 10 has little choice but to do otherwise, the SEC has no good reason to play cupcakes).
And that’s not even factoring in that most of the Pac 10’s non-BCS OOC games are against MWC and WAC teams, which are a whole different story than MAC / CUSA / Sun Belt teams (it’s an extreme example, but Oregon’s playing both Utah and Boise State next year; their game against Purdue is probably their easiest non-conference game).
That's 100% correct
I don’t know how two people could look at a composite schedule of each conference and conclude the Big Ten was in the same ballpark as the Pac-10, much less better.
As a MA resident who isn't a Patriots fan...
I have to disagree with this statement:
No one in the NFL seemed to cry about San Diego making the playoffs at 8-8 last year while 11-5 New England was left at home.
Patriots fans definitely whined about it & still do. They try to make it seem like they are only thinking about the integrity of the playoffs & how any team with a better record shouldn’t be excluded, but you can tell they feel they were cheated out of a playoff spot that should have been theirs.
Born and raised in the shadow of Mount Nittany
It could be worse
The NBA recently has had losing record teams making the playoffs in the EAST while quality teams are left out of the WEST. How can you have a chance to play for a title WITH A LOSING RECORD?!
I guess that happens when literally over half your league makes the playoffs, bah
Black Shoes.
Basic Blues.
No Name.
All Game.
Dylan?
Is that last sentence an allusion to Dylan’s World War III Blues? If so, nice work. It’s not often one reads cogent football analysis punctuated by a Dylan reference.
BSD: The Duke of New York. A #1.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE BLACK SHOE DIARIES STORE
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
