CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on December 15, 2024, 06:49:51 PM
-
You guys heard of it?
"some changes to the conference championship weekend"
IE - perhaps the B1G and SEC getting a set number of teams in the playoff, let's say 4 each.....which would then yield a CCG weekend not of the top 2 teams in each of those conferences facing off, but of a play-in game of the 4th and 5th slotted teams.
The top 3 in each conference get to take the weekend off, as they're already in the CFP.
What say yous guys?
-
Cluster fuck,not your idea but how many kids bail to save their sunday careers. Like I prophesized 😇
-
It would only take one or two top players bailing to majorly impact a team of course.
-
once the top players are tied to binding $$$ contracts, they will be playing in those end of season games or forfeiting good money
-
once the top players are tied to binding $$$ contracts, they will be playing in those end of season games or forfeiting good money
They might come down with a painful hang nail and be unable to suit up.
-
I think giving a 3-loss big 12 team a bye in the playoff will be avoided
-
I think guaranteeing spots is actual participation trophy, nonsense.
-
so does the Bama AD
-
I think the Big Ten should just set up a flex schedule the week of the CCG.
Everybody up until to that week would have played 8 conference games (4 home, 4 away) and 11 overall games. By then everybody should have played all its annual rivalry games too. Then on CCG weekend, everybody plays it's 12th game.
The Big Ten can then decide the best lineup based on what has happened that year.
-
I think the Big Ten should just set up a flex schedule the week of the CCG.
Everybody up until to that week would have played 8 conference games (4 home, 4 away) and 11 overall games. By then everybody should have played all its annual rivalry games too. Then on CCG weekend, everybody plays it's 12th game.
The Big Ten can then decide the best lineup based on what has happened that year.
Wasn't that the original plan for the COVID year?
-
The Big Ten can then decide the best lineup based on what has happened that year.
so, Ohio St., Oregon, Indiana, Penn St. play Purdue, Maryland, Northwestern, & Wisconsin
Thus, protecting their playoff possibilities...
Like playing Mercer only better
-
Wasn't that the original plan for the COVID year?
Yes, until half the games that week got canceled due to players getting COVID.
Of course it actually helped with the scheduling that no fans could attend the games. It made last minute schedule updates a little easier because you did not have to worry about travel plans for the fans.
-
so, Ohio St., Oregon, Indiana, Penn St. play Purdue, Maryland, Northwestern, & Wisconsin
Thus, protecting their playoff possibilities...
Like playing Mercer only better
I am not sure the TV networks would like that, but sure that would have worked this year.
Maybe on flex weekend, you can have a tentative game scheduled ahead of time against a non-rival. Then the Big Ten can tweak it if necessary. Try to keep the number of home games equal over a 4 year period.
-
the networks don't like that Bama plays Mercer instead of another SEC game
9 game sched is the only way the Big can compete with the SEC on TV $$$
-
I figured the 9 game SEC slate was a bargaining chip, maybe it's time.
-
I figured the 9 game SEC slate was a bargaining chip, maybe it's time.
It's definitely a bargaining chip. The SEC isn't going to move to a 9-game schedule until Disney is willing to pay for it.
-
Lots of fun made of the 8 game SEC schedules, with the creampuff OOC game in November.
Anybody going to mention that the SEC SOS are still rated more difficult than the B1G 9 game conference schedule?
(https://i.imgur.com/vQFW19F.png)
-
My own preference is for each P5 team to schedule at least ten other P4 teams in a regular season.
Two pastries.
-
No FCS. Ever.
-
I figured the 9 game SEC slate was a bargaining chip, maybe it's time.
It’s probably a bad idea, unless someone pays them to do it.
-
No FCS. Ever.
Agreed. Even though my team probably would have gone 0-12 this year if we'd even scheduled an FBS pastry instead of the FCS pastry we beat.
-
As long as whatever games include an autobid instead of being a "data point," then sounds good to me. It definitely makes more sense to reward the best teams instead of making them play more.
-
No FCS. Ever.
The older I get, less I sort of care about that.
in terms of quality, the top of the FCS blends somewhat with the bottom of FBS. a large proportion of Fans can’t tell the difference, and most competent teams should treat them about the same way.
Granted, I have less animosity toward that part of the schedule than most.
-
The older I get, less I sort of care about that.
in terms of quality, the top of the FCS blends somewhat with the bottom of FBS. a large proportion of Fans can’t tell the difference, and most competent teams should treat them about the same way.
Granted, I have less animosity toward that part of the schedule than most.
Not many teams are scheduling the top of FCS when they schedule FCS. If we're going to knock scheduling here on this thread (which is precisely what prompted this discussion), then it's perfectly reasonable to knock scheduling FCS teams.
-
I'd prefer my team not play FCS teams, but realistically, a pastry is a pastry is a pastry.
I'd guess at times there aren't enough pastry FBS teams available. I don't credit a team that plays NMSU over NDSU any unless it's Auburn.
-
The older I get, less I sort of care about that.
in terms of quality, the top of the FCS blends somewhat with the bottom of FBS. a large proportion of Fans can’t tell the difference, and most competent teams should treat them about the same way.
Granted, I have less animosity toward that part of the schedule than most.
This is true, but I think the scholarship limits probably opens that gap a little bit more later in the year, when FCS teams have fewer scholarship players to fill in for injuries.
SP+ does rank all 764 NCAA teams/NAIA teams
(https://i.imgur.com/ykID7h4.jpeg)
https://twitter.com/ESPN_BillC/status/1866188038436512193
-
I was more nervous about Wisconsin playing South Dakota this season than I was for Western Michigan.
-
Not many teams are scheduling the top of FCS when they schedule FCS. If we're going to knock scheduling here on this thread (which is precisely what prompted this discussion), then it's perfectly reasonable to knock scheduling FCS teams.
That’s true. But it’s also a place that’s good to knock the knocking of that as being a bit overstated. The gap between Akron and Lehigh is definitely there, but it probably doesn’t matter to a program that isn’t close to firing a coach anyway.
I kind of figured you were right that teams avoid good FCS teams, but not so this year. Of 16 seeded playoff teams, only two didn’t play FBS teams. Wonder if anyone has done a study on that.
-
I'd prefer my team not play FCS teams, but realistically, a pastry is a pastry is a pastry.
I'd guess at times there aren't enough pastry FBS teams available. I don't credit a team that plays NMSU over NDSU any unless it's Auburn.
I think there are enough, but when you limit the pool, you pay more. And the upside isn’t that high.
-
No FCS. Ever.
2007 Michigan agrees with you.
-
I don't think most folks judge a schedule based on how weak the two or three pastries are. For good teams, they are nearly assured wins. The SoS relies I think on which other good teams they played and where. UGA played UMass and Tenn Tech but some say they had the toughest slate in the country.
-
That’s true. But it’s also a place that’s good to knock the knocking of that as being a bit overstated. The gap between Akron and Lehigh is definitely there, but it probably doesn’t matter to a program that isn’t close to firing a coach anyway.
I kind of figured you were right that teams avoid good FCS teams, but not so this year. Of 16 seeded playoff teams, only two didn’t play FBS teams. Wonder if anyone has done a study on that.
That's not really the way to look at it. Rather, of the total number of games scheduled by FBS teams against FCS teams, how many were FCS playoff teams?
And then of course, it's only one year so a super small sample size. Over the pest ten years would provide better data.
-
I don't see much difference in beating down UT Chattanooga, or beating down UTEP, other than keeping some of that money local.
-
I don't see much difference in beating down UT Chattanooga, or beating down UTEP, other than keeping some of that money local.
Perfect SECSECSEC response. Well done, sir! :)
-
Not many teams are scheduling the top of FCS when they schedule FCS. If we're going to knock scheduling here on this thread (which is precisely what prompted this discussion), then it's perfectly reasonable to knock scheduling FCS teams.
I think a lot of FCS scheduling is geographic more than based on team quality.
I don't know how many years in advance most FCS teams get contracted to play paycheck games, but the other aspect is that like a lot of scheduling, you may try to schedule a good FCS team and by the time you play them, they suck, or you try to schedule a local FCS team who sucks and by the time you play them, they're good.
Purdue already has Southern Illinois on the slate for 2025, Indiana State in 2026, all 3 OOC FBS in 2027, Western Illinois in 2028, and hasn't filled out their OOC slate beyond that (although has two FBS already for 2029).
Obviously with Purdue playing Illinois and Indiana teams it's mostly geographic. But while I don't know when 2025 was scheduled, I don't think any of us can predict what 2026 ISU or 2028 WIU will look like based on their rosters today.
Where I'll agree with you is that a team like Purdue isn't going to be seeking out some "traditional FCS powerhouse" to the extent such things exist... I don't see them putting someone like Appy State in their heyday or SDSU now on the schedule. For a team like Purdue, that's all downside. A win doesn't look all that impressive, but a loss looks terrible.
-
That's not really the way to look at it. Rather, of the total number of games scheduled by FBS teams against FCS teams, how many were FCS playoff teams?
And then of course, it's only one year so a super small sample size. Over the pest ten years would provide better data.
But the way that you have a line it is also not really a way to look at it. Most FCS teams only play one FBS team. So there are only a total of 24 slots. So you max out at less than 18% of teams being able to play an FCS playoff team (if everyone played one)
And then you could get into questions of timing/is the metric better if you use last year’s playoff team teams/what not.
I guess I just sort of chafe at the kind of broad context element of all of it. An FCS team can be a lot of different things, as can a mid-major team (as can a mid major team from year to year). Granted, I also think the chasing of more and more challenging schedules is going to make things less fun for lots of folks, but that’s mostly my hill.
-
But the way that you have a line it is also not really a way to look at it. Most FCS teams only play one FBS team. So there are only a total of 24 slots. So you max out at less than 18% of teams being able to play an FCS playoff team (if everyone played one)
And then you could get into questions of timing/is the metric better if you use last year’s playoff team teams/what not.
I guess I just sort of chafe at the kind of broad context element of all of it. An FCS team can be a lot of different things, as can a mid-major team (as can a mid major team from year to year). Granted, I also think the chasing of more and more challenging schedules is going to make things less fun for lots of folks, but that’s mostly my hill.
I'm not worried about the "fairness" or "availability" of who can schedule a top FCS playoff team. If there are only 24 slots that constitute an "acceptable" FCS team, a simple solution to that problem, is-- don't schedule FCS teams at all.
But even more than that, within the context of criticizing OOC scheduling-- which was the point of this discussion-- the division between FBS and FCS is just a natural and easy cutoff. If the bottom of the FBS and the top of FCS are somewhat blended, then there's nowhere to go but down after you get past the first handful of teams in FCS. So, just eliminate FCS completely, and you can go a long way toward removing the arguments against a team's OOC schedule.
"Timing" is an issue for ANY scheduling, whether it's FCS or FBS, so I don't really view that as a worthwhile argument either direction.
-
Not that it necessarily matters to this discussion, but my recollection is that those FCS teams really value the opportunity to play the big boys (and get the pay check). They might be quite sad if denied the opportunity.
-
Not that it necessarily matters to this discussion, but my recollection is that those FCS teams really value the opportunity to play the big boys (and get the pay check). They might be quite sad if denied the opportunity.
For sure, for some of those teams the bodybag game paycheck is a major part of their budget.
-
My neighbor is an associate AD for Duquesne. That one game essentially pays for their season.
-
Not that it necessarily matters to this discussion, but my recollection is that those FCS teams really value the opportunity to play the big boys (and get the pay check). They might be quite sad if denied the opportunity.
I get that.
But we don't need to make FBS worse in order to make FCS better. And IMHO FBS teams playing FCS competition makes FBS worse.
-
the FCS teams are going to get better next season with the 105 roster limit
Scheduling for next season isn't going to change much a tall - already set
-
Without looking it up, I don't know which pastries are which.
-
I think the Big Ten should just set up a flex schedule the week of the CCG.
Everybody up until to that week would have played 8 conference games (4 home, 4 away) and 11 overall games. By then everybody should have played all its annual rivalry games too. Then on CCG weekend, everybody plays it's 12th game.
The Big Ten can then decide the best lineup based on what has happened that year.
I think this is a fantastic idea with the top game being the CG and the rest being as closely matched as reasonably possible while maintaining an even number of home games in the long run and avoiding rematches to the extent possible.
Using this years' final standings (I realize it would actually be after 8 games but I'm using final for the example):
- Penn State 8-1 at Oregon 9-0 - CG
- Illinois 6-3 at Ohio State 7-2 (because tOSU already played both IU and IA)
- Iowa 6-3 at Indiana 8-1
- Rutgers 4-5 at Michigan 5-4 (because M already played MN, UWash, and USC)
- Washington 4-5 at Minnesota 5-4
- Michigan State 3-6 at USC 4-5 (because USC already played UCLA, UNL, and UWisc)
- UCLA 3-6 at Wisconsin 3-6 (UCLA already played UNL)
- Northwestern 2-7 at Nebraska 3-6
- Purdue 0-9 at Maryland 1-8
No rematches. The biggest mismatch by record is the two game difference between Iowa and Indiana. The other eight games match teams that finished within one game of each other in the standings. And there are big stakes in multiple games:
- PSU/Oregon are both in the CFP but this is for a bye.
- tOSU is playing for a CFP berth. If they lose they are out.
- Indiana is playing for a CFP berth. If they lose they are out.
Depending on how things went in the first 11, some or all of Michigan, Minnesota, Rutgers, Washington, USC, Nebraska UCLA, MSU, and UWisc could be playing for bowl eligibility.
Even the crap game (PU at UMD) should at least be a good competitive game.
-
I think this is a fantastic idea with the top game being the CG and the rest being as closely matched as reasonably possible while maintaining an even number of home games in the long run and avoiding rematches to the extent possible.
Using this years' final standings (I realize it would actually be after 8 games but I'm using final for the example):
- Penn State 8-1 at Oregon 9-0 - CG
- Illinois 6-3 at Ohio State 7-2 (because tOSU already played both IU and IA)
- Iowa 6-3 at Indiana 8-1
- Rutgers 4-5 at Michigan 5-4 (because M already played MN, UWash, and USC)
- Washington 4-5 at Minnesota 5-4
- Michigan State 3-6 at USC 4-5 (because USC already played UCLA, UNL, and UWisc)
- UCLA 3-6 at Wisconsin 3-6 (UCLA already played UNL)
- Northwestern 2-7 at Nebraska 3-6
- Purdue 0-9 at Maryland 1-8
No rematches. The biggest mismatch by record is the two game difference between Iowa and Indiana. The other eight games match teams that finished within one game of each other in the standings. And there are big stakes in multiple games:
- PSU/Oregon are both in the CFP but this is for a bye.
- tOSU is playing for a CFP berth. If they lose they are out.
- Indiana is playing for a CFP berth. If they lose they are out.
Depending on how things went in the first 11, some or all of Michigan, Minnesota, Rutgers, Washington, USC, Nebraska UCLA, MSU, and UWisc could be playing for bowl eligibility.
Even the crap game (PU at UMD) should at least be a good competitive game.
I do think it would make for compelling games, but doesn't this just have the capacity to end up knocking teams out of the CFP by forcing them to play tougher competition than perhaps they had already scheduled? After all, I'm quite sure Indiana would rather have played Purdue in the final game this year than Iowa...
One of my old coworkers had an idea back in the BCS days... First 10 games (probably over 11 weeks to allow byes), teams schedule themselves. For the final 2 games of the season, a committee sets the schedule, such that every team will have both a home and an away game (which should help for ticket sales obv). The goal would be similar to what you've proposed, to essentially sort out the teams to determine who is worthy of a BCSCG slot, and weaker teams would be paired with weaker teams for compelling matchups as well.
This was back in the 2008-2012 timeframe before many conferences had moved to the CCG model, so it wasn't going to conflict with that much. And it was in the days of the BCS, where we were trying to restrict the teams to 2, so it would be silly in a 12-team CFP world. And of course the SEC would bitch because they like their FCS cupcakes to tune up in their 11th game before rivalry week :57:
But I thought it was an interesting thing that would have worked well with the BCS model. Of course he was a Boise State guy so he wanted high-profile games to allow for an "unworthy" team like BSU that doesn't get the benefit of the doubt to have a route to force their way in...
-
Depending on how things went in the first 11, some or all of Michigan, Minnesota, Rutgers, Washington, USC, Nebraska UCLA, MSU, and UWisc could be playing for bowl eligibility.
That is the tricky part in this hypothetical. Which of the 9 conference games gets left out in the schedule. I assume all the Thanksgiving week games would be the same and all teams will still play all their fixed rivals
Also the Big Ten might have to tweak it's rotation to only play everybody twice in 6 years instead of 2 times in 5 years.
-
I do think it would make for compelling games, but doesn't this just have the capacity to end up knocking teams out of the CFP by forcing them to play tougher competition than perhaps they had already scheduled? After all, I'm quite sure Indiana would rather have played Purdue in the final game this year than Iowa...
I am more of a fan of the idea that a team should want to earn their way in, instead of running away from completion. Indiana playing and beating Iowa would be the perfect way for Indiana to prove they deserve a spot in the CFP. And if Indiana can't beat Iowa, they probably never did deserve a spot in the CFP anyway.
-
That is the tricky part in this hypothetical. Which of the 9 conference games gets left out in the schedule. I assume all the Thanksgiving week games would be the same and all teams will still play all their fixed rivals
Also the Big Ten might have to tweak it's rotation to only play everybody twice in 6 years instead of 2 times in 5 years.
I agree on all the Thanksgiving weekend games needing to be played. That weekend we had:
- Minnesota at Wisconsin
- Nebraska at Iowa
- Washington at Oregon
- Michigan at Ohio State
- Maryland at Penn State
- Notre Dame at USC
- Purdue at Indiana
- Illinois at Northwestern
- Rutgers at Michigan State
- Fresno State at UCLA
There are 10 instead of nine because of USC finishing with Notre Dame and consequently UCLA having to schedule an OOC as well.
With the exceptions of UMD/PSU and RU/MSU these are all rivalries. Those are the exceptions because PSU's and MSU's biggest rivals are already taken.
You are right that it would mean less scheduled play but the games you'd add would almost all be compelling match-ups where at least some of the games you deleted wouldn't. I think it makes for a more fun season overall. The bigger problem is probably this:
doesn't this just have the capacity to end up knocking teams out of the CFP by forcing them to play tougher competition than perhaps they had already scheduled? After all, I'm quite sure Indiana would rather have played Purdue in the final game this year than Iowa...
As I drew it up, Ohio State and Indiana would probably have been playing for playoff berths with basically no upside for the conference because they would have faced elimination but neither Iowa nor Illinois could have gotten in by beating them.
My question is whether that would be a one year situation or if that would be the norm. If you look at the final rankings, the "last four in" were:
- #11 seed SMU 10-2 loser of ACCCG
- #10 seed IU 11-1
- #9 seed Tennessee 10-2
- #8 seed Ohio State 10-2
The first four out were:
- #11 Alabama 9-3
- #13 Miami 10-2
- #14 Ole Miss 9-3
- #15 USCe 9-3
So at least for the first year of the CFP, three losses was fatal even for Alabama which had good SoS and has a HUMONGOUS helmet.
Indiana with two losses or Ohio State with three would need the extra quality opponent. Indiana with one loss or Ohio State with two is MUCH better off just standing pat and heading to the CFP.
-
I am more of a fan of the idea that a team should want to earn their way in, instead of running away from completion. Indiana playing and beating Iowa would be the perfect way for Indiana to prove they deserve a spot in the CFP. And if Indiana can't beat Iowa, they probably never did deserve a spot in the CFP anyway.
Hey, I'm not saying this is a bad thing from the fan perspective. And watching Indiana lose to Iowa and getting knocked out of the CFP is something I wholeheartedly support. Especially if it means Purdue doesn't have to suffer a 66-0 curb-stomp from them to end the season.
But you have to ask, since you suggested the "Big Ten" should do this... Why would this be in the Big Ten's interests as a conference? It wouldn't. The conference wants as many teams in the playoff as possible.
Potentially from the conference's standpoint, they get more TV revenue from that weekend... But then lose TV revenue and monetary gains if teams get knocked out of the CFP, and lose conference pride and a collective belief in the strength of the conference if teams get knocked out of the CFP.
-
I am more of a fan of the idea that a team should want to earn their way in, instead of running away from completion. Indiana playing and beating Iowa would be the perfect way for Indiana to prove they deserve a spot in the CFP. And if Indiana can't beat Iowa, they probably never did deserve a spot in the CFP anyway.
You are not wrong and there is an additional problem with Indiana getting in. The B1G had four CFP teams (Ore, PSU, tOSU, IU) and even the SEC only had three so all of our other teams got moved up a slot in competition in the bowls, thus:
- 7-5 Rutgers is playing 8-4 KSU
- 6-6 USC is playing 8-4 aTm
- 6-6 UNL is playing 7-5 BC
- 8-4 Iowa is playing 9-3 Mizzou
- 7-5 M is playing 9-3 Bama
- 6-6 UWash is playing 8-4 L'Ville
- 9-3 IL is playing 9-3 USCe
- 7-5 MN is playing 6-6 VaTech
Minnesota is the ONLY (non-CFP) B1G with a bowl opponent that has a worse record and only IL is playing a team with the same record. All the rest are playing teams a game or two better than themselves. That contributes to the fact that only MN and UNL are favored.
If Indiana had missed the CFP then everybody moves down a slot and gets easier competition. It has an even bigger impact in the bowls against whatever conference happened to snag IU's spot. Ie, if Bama had gotten IU's CFP spot then maybe Michigan gets USCe and IL gets an SEC team further down the pecking order.
That said, this is all about MONEY and the CFP pays really well so we are all better off with IU in the CFP even if they do get drilled by Notre Dame. Much as @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) hates seeing rival PU in the CFP, his school cashes a check for that too.
-
Hey, I'm not saying this is a bad thing from the fan perspective. And watching Indiana lose to Iowa and getting knocked out of the CFP is something I wholeheartedly support. Especially if it means Purdue doesn't have to suffer a 66-0 curb-stomp from them to end the season.
Some thoughts
I am pretty sure Indiana would still play Purdue during Thanksgiving week just like OSU-Mich, Wisc-Minn, Iowa-Neb, etc would still play that week. It's some other random game in the middle of the season that would get cut from the schedule.
I am also a big fan of Indiana this season and think they would have no problem beating Iowa if they had to play Iowa.
Also all I said was leave the flex schedule to the Big Ten that week. They can decide what's best for the conference. Although it would be handy to have some rules in place like Medina suggested. No rematches, etc.
Also as an alternative thought, maybe they should have had PSU and Indiana play each other since they were tied for 2nd. Oregon could play one of the west coast teams instead. Illinois could play Iowa for 5th place and the Citrus Bowl.
-
Another option with a flex week is to let the teams decide starting at the top of the pecking order. They can choose to either host a game or else challenge a higher ranked team as a road team.
So Oregon as #1 gets to host a game. PSU #2 then can choose to either be a host for a game, or challenge by traveling to Oregon. So let's say PSU chooses to host.
Next Indiana #3, gets a choice to host, or travel to Oregon, or travel to PSU. Indiana chooses to travel to Oregon.
Next Ohio St at # 4, can either host or travel to PSU. OSU chooses to host.
Next Iowa at #5, can either host or travel to PSU or OSU. Iowa chooses to host.
Next Illinois at #6, Illinois chooses to travel to Iowa
And so on, until you have 9 teams hosting, then the remaining teams have to choose to travel.
Of course, maybe there would need to be some rules in place to make sure there are no rematches and you can't choose somebody more than 3 spots above or below you in the rankings.
-
there is absolutely zero potential for a "flex" week next year