In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 323
Online now 409 Record: 7264 (3/12/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I heard an interesting idea on a sports talk show earlier today. They were talking about scheduling in college football, and how difficult it can be to predict how good a team will be 5-7 years down the line. Outside of a select few teams, there aren't many teams that are good every single year. For instance, Michigan could schedule a West Virginia, South Carolina, Stanford, etc for the 2019 season. But who's to say those teams won't have completely bottomed out at that point?
So, to combat this potential issue, the idea presented was to have the NCAA handle every school's OOC scheduling, just like every pro league does.
The way it would work is that all FBS teams would be divided into 3 or 4 tiers, which would be based on recent success. Every two years, the NCAA would reassign the tiers base on how you've been doing, so the games would only be scheduled two years in advance, rather than 5-7.
Each team would play a home/away against a tier one team, tier two team and tier three team every year. Obviously, some schedules would be a little more difficult than others, but this would make it as equal as possible.
What do you all think?
I like to play Notre Dame and cupcakes. Let's the hype run high until late B1G season and increases the chances for Michigan to run the table.
If they did the tier system, there would be so many scheduling issues and complaints during the playoff selections about strength of schedule, because obviously not all tier one teams are actually on the same level, same with all the other tiers.
I like it just don’t think it’s ever possible.
I like the idea also but you would have to take into account how many tier 1, 2, 3 teams you would play on your regular schedule. If Alabama already plays LSU, Auburn and Arkansas when they are already considered a tier 1 or tier 2 school during a cycle, I don't think they should have to play an OOC tier 1, 2 and 3 school. Scheduling teams 5-7 years ahead of time and DII schools has to stop.
I'm not a fan of this idea.
The NCAA is one of the most enduring crooked organizations in the nation. (And that is not an exaggeration to those who know its sordid history. There are books chronicling the NCAA's selective enforcement over the years.)
I have absolutely zero confidence in the NCAA to do things correctly or competently.
This post was edited by Frank C 18 months ago
* * * N E O . R E T R O * * *
I would be a fan of this idea, if the NCAA wasn't exactly as Frank C said, crooked, inefficient, inconsistent, and all around mismanaged organization.
Like several of you said, I'm not at all confident in the competence or the integrity of the NCAA as currently constituted.
That being said, a separate committee could be brought in to do this, so the current employees wouldn't have to do anything. What if there were a way to ensure the fairness and legitimacy of this committee? Would you guys be in favor of it then?
Bad idea to get the NCAA more involved in anything. They are worse than our politicians.
My own preference would be to setup inter-conference matchups like basketball does with the B1G-ACC Challenge. They almost got there with the Pac12 agreement, but if we could do that and then lineup the top matchups every year that would be great. Just guarantee you get a home game every other year, but don't guarantee who you'll be playing. So year one might be Michigan-USC @ USC, and then if Michigan was considered down the following year it might be Michigan-Cal in Ann Arbor. Benefits both conferences by having some guaranteed marquee matchups against the top teams every year without having uninteresting games like USC-Minnesota.
This post was edited by Dizzo 18 months ago
I'd definitely say leave the NCAA out of it. I'm sure most here could understand why I'd say that.
Ideally, this would be something that's implemented when the 16-team superconferences are formed. Play 3 teams in the other 4 conferences who finished in the same place (in-conference rankings) the previous year. You'd really get a good idea of which conferences are the best then.
I do think overall the idea has merit. Honestly, that would make the OOC schedules similar to bowl games (which also match up teams that are supposedly on the same plane).
Personally, I don't want to give the NCAA any more power than they already have. They already are a joke of an organization thanks to selective enforcement, so I wouldn't trust them to run a frozen banana stand, much less scheduling all of college football.
The only issue I see, now that you pointed out how they are similar to bowl games, is teams almost have an incentive to door poorly in one season so they setup an easier schedule for the next. Michigan this year, for example, could actually view losing as a positive since their schedule made it obvious they weren't going undefeated. So if losing a few games meant their OOC next year would be easier, then technically it would give them a better shot to go undefeated and play for a championship.
Given how some NBA teams were obviously tanking to try to improve their draft position, it's not out of the question once you are out of the national championship/conference championship hunt, losing might set you up better in the future.
We really already have this don't we? Play 1 elite game... 'Bama. Play 1 mid tier... ND... Play 3rd tear... UMass and AF could be an in between 2 and 3 team depending on the year. We used to see a Pac10 team on the schedule with some lower level BCS caliber teams (Baylor, Vandy, Colorado in the later years) with MAC schools.
If the NCAA or some assemble committee is in charge of creating non-con schedules, then you'll just hear about how the committee favors some teams over others. The anger would be directed at the committee instead of the school. This would actually be bailing out the school when the playoff comes around. "We played the schedule we were given." Instead of forcing teams to seek out a quality schedule on their own. When the playoff starts, I'm sure you'll start seeing the SEC teams playing more high profile, non-con ROAD games that we currently do. The first time a 1 loss, at large SEC team is passed up for a 1 loss team from any other conference, the entire country will tell them to play someone outside of the southeast to be included. If a committee creates the schedule there wouldn't be any way they'd be able to leave out the 1 loss SEC team because they weren't in charge of their own schedule they will get a bid over anyone.
I think that there is no way to ensure fairness and legitimacy which is why I'm so against it. That is my primary concern.
Moreover, I think that the conference offices have the best interests of their members. Hence, I prefer that the conference offices continue to make schedules.
I'd like to think that teams wouldn't go that far. Especially, as a coach, you might think you could have a championship run next year, but it doesn't come to fruition. A second reason is that wins still help in recruiting (as UM is seeing after last season). A third reason is that you never know which teams you'll end up being matched with. Tanking might put you on par with a team that's on the rise, while staying might match you with a team that is poised to lose a lot of good players.
Despite all those reasons, not sure college coaches can ever be truly defined as logical, so you never know. You might be right.
Great discussion here guys!
When I first heard it, I thought it was a bad idea. But after spending some time thinking about it, I think it could have some merit IF it's done correctly. Some of you have pointed out some clear roadblocks that would obviously need to be addressed somehow before it would get implemented.
I'm not a big fan of scheduling games seven years in advance, and this would be a way to solve that. But by the same token, I don't think that's the most pressing problem facing college football these days, so it may not be worth it to make such a drastic change if it'll bring up a whole new series of issues.
This would eliminate many rivalry games that are OOC, such as what ND usually schedules every year. I would propose that maybe only 1 OOC game would be scheduled from the NCAA if anything, that would give an interesting spin on things
Very true about the OOC rivalry games. But if you think about it, there really aren't a ton of those around anymore. Notre Dame has some, but even that's changing. Florida-Florida State is another. Texas-Texas A&M is gone. Nebraska-Oklahoma is gone. The games between the service academics would most certainly remain intact. I'm sure I'm forgetting some here, but I think there could be a way to make sure the few remaining OOC rivalries remain intact.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports