BTN going on about our 9 conference game schedules

[UncleChesterton]

listening to these guys talk about how the B1G should get more consideration for its larger number of conference scheduled opponents and number of power 5 opponents, it occurs to me:

1. No one outside the B1G really cares.

2. The CFP committee has maintained one thing above all else: Their subjective estimates of team strength are paramount.

3. The CFP committee has demonstrated that they will punish teams harder for early losses than for lack of tougher opponents and are NOT married to Conf titles. Alabama getting in over OSU is a perfect example last year.

4. Their methodology seems to have put a rested, under stressed monster in place to rightfully, and rather easily, claim another nauseating title. This validates #2.

Rather than help ‘sell’ our rightful place in the CFP, we’ve adopted a scheduling system that will produce teams with more losses, more bruising battles and more chance of injury. Our maneuvering at the conference and media level to insinuate that we deserve a spot, or that the system owes us more clarity or that the SEC gets too much respect are seen, rightly, as ways to get around point #2 above.

TL;DR VERSION; 9 CONFERENCE GAMES WAS A DUMB MOVE. LIFE ISNT FAIR. ALABAMA WAS OBVIOUSLY THE BEST TEAM LAST YEAR AND THE CFPC WASNT FOOLED.

 

[Big Hawk D-Port]

As a fan I like more conference games. If you want to be in the playoff you need to have one of the four best teams. Pretty simple.

 

[DutchyFunStar]

With a 14 team conference why do we even have OOC games?(answer below) Close the schedule and play everyone except for 1 team. No more weak or murderous crossover schedule.

This would eliminate the 7th home game that everyone wants for more revenue. You could also argue that it would eliminate the need for a championship game and the revenue that brings in.

 

[FlickShagwell]

Go back to 8 conference games so we can have a home and home with Notre Dame.

 

[iowa12]

Have the conference do the scheduling so we get to finally determine whether camp ferentz earns his money. Do non con cross scheduling with another conference like in hoops. Different conference every year and other cross sectional games could be added to round things out

 

[spiderland]

TL;DR VERSION; 9 CONFERENCE GAMES WAS A DUMB MOVE. LIFE ISNT FAIR. ALABAMA WAS OBVIOUSLY THE BEST TEAM LAST YEAR AND THE CFPC WASNT FOOLED.

1. Alabama is the obvious best team almost every year anymore. Why don’t we just crown them in September and be done with it? Problem solved.

2. WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING?

 

[Besthawkfan]

listening to these guys talk about how the B1G should get more consideration for its larger number of conference scheduled opponents and number of power 5 opponents, it occurs to me:

1. No one outside the B1G really cares.

2. The CFP committee has maintained one thing above all else: Their subjective estimates of team strength are paramount.

3. The CFP committee has demonstrated that they will punish teams harder for early losses than for lack of tougher opponents and are NOT married to Conf titles. Alabama getting in over OSU is a perfect example last year.

4. Their methodology seems to have put a rested, under stressed monster in place to rightfully, and rather easily, claim another nauseating title. This validates #2.

Rather than help ‘sell’ our rightful place in the CFP, we’ve adopted a scheduling system that will produce teams with more losses, more bruising battles and more chance of injury. Our maneuvering at the conference and media level to insinuate that we deserve a spot, or that the system owes us more clarity or that the SEC gets too much respect are seen, rightly, as ways to get around point #2 above.

TL;DR VERSION; 9 CONFERENCE GAMES WAS A DUMB MOVE. LIFE ISNT FAIR. ALABAMA WAS OBVIOUSLY THE BEST TEAM LAST YEAR AND THE CFPC WASNT FOOLED.

Alabama wasn't the best team. Georgia was they just quit playing. Just like Jacksonville quit playing against new England. It's a rigged system designed to make money. Not to create any legitimacy.

 

[SDHawkDoc]

I'd rather go back to fewer teams in the conference and an 8 game conference slate. Make room for an interesting matchup every year out of conference with a name opponent with more than just a pulse.

Of course that will never happen.

 

[papabeef]

Alabama wasn't the best team. Georgia was they just quit playing. Just like Jacksonville quit playing against new England. It's a rigged system designed to make money. Not to create any legitimacy.

IF georgia quit they made a choice . alabama continued to play hard , they were better .

 

[papabeef]

Alabama wasn't the best team. Georgia was they just quit playing. Just like Jacksonville quit playing against new England. It's a rigged system designed to make money. Not to create any legitimacy.

soooo if it is a rigged system you are insinuating that georgia was payed to quit , right ? very stupid post .

 

[mikesright]

I don’t want the best 4 teams in the playoffs. I want the 4 most deserving. I thought the latter was what we were getting. It pisses me off that the committee took the other approach. I would almost rather return to the pre-bcs system rather than see teams that don’t win their conference division get in the playoff.

 

[UncleChesterton]

As a fan I like more conference games. If you want to be in the playoff you need to have one of the four best teams. Pretty simple.

Hard to argue with this, except that the Big 10 intelligentsia makes a lot of circular arguments about Alabama gettig

I'd rather go back to fewer teams in the conference and an 8 game conference slate. Make room for an interesting matchup every year out of conference with a name opponent with more than just a pulse.

Of course that will never happen.

Of course that’s a interesting approach, but Alabama scheduled Mercer right when the rest of the country was in a late season melee to get in, didn’t win their conference and coasted in on metrics- which were proved boringly valid. They intentionally schedule down to the least risk, best strategically timed non-cons possible.

My main point is that SOS isn’t helping, is probably hurting our conference Playoff hopes. As far as it leading to more exciting football, well, sure. Should we all roll over, play patsies and do the same as Alabama? No, but complaining about the system isn’t going to help the B1G

 

[UncleChesterton]

I don’t want the best 4 teams in the playoffs. I want the 4 most deserving. I thought the latter was what we were getting. It pisses me off that the committee took the other approach. I would almost rather return to the pre-bcs system rather than see teams that don’t win their conference division get in the playoff.

In 2012, 11-1 Alabama played 13-0 LSU and shut them out 21-0, so it was 2 teams from the SAME conference division. The BCS was not better in the way you suggest.

Still, I hate Alabama and would love to see their overbuilt, consultant driven business of winning football at all costs get stuffed. But... I agree with the CFP guideline of ‘best’ team being put in over other considerations, even if the repetitiveness is beginning to hurt the sport IMO

 

[scarletred]

The B1G is at a disadvantage playing 9 conference games if the ACC and SEC only play 8 conference games..

Wish Delaney would have taken these facts under consideration..

 

[rchawk]

I remember great games against Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, even Indiana. We don't play those teams as often now. With an eight game conference schedule we would play them even less.

Also, I like playing as many conference foes as possible while still allowing for games outside the league. With 14 teams in the Big Ten some are going to have tougher cross-division schedules than others whether you play two or three.

I'm probably in the minority but I like the nine game schedule.

 

[kceasthawk]

Have the conference do the scheduling so we get to finally determine whether camp ferentz earns his money. Do non con cross scheduling with another conference like in hoops. Different conference every year and other cross sectional games could be added to round things out

Really, and how would that solve the problem. By all accounts, Iowa played a much tougher schedule last season then Alabama. Who played in the championship? Oh thats right, the team that played a bunch of non conference cupcakes......

 

[iahawks10]

I don’t want the best 4 teams in the playoffs. I want the 4 most deserving. I thought the latter was what we were getting. It pisses me off that the committee took the other approach. I would almost rather return to the pre-bcs system rather than see teams that don’t win their conference division get in the playoff.

Not that I feel like rehashing this tired old argument yet another time, but here goes. Maybe if it’s said enough times, it might sink in.

Conferences and divisions are not created equally. Neither are each schools unbalanced schedules. It’s up to the committee to find the four best teams, which is exactly what they did last season.

The only problem I have is that the NCAA needs to move the playoffs from four teams to anywhere around 6-12 teams. Even if that were the case, I don’t think it changes the outcome of last season’s champion.

 

[SDHawkDoc]

Not that I feel like rehashing this tired old argument yet another time, but here goes. Maybe if it’s said enough times, it might sink in.

Conferences and divisions are not created equally. Neither are each schools unbalanced schedules. It’s up to the committee to find the four best teams, which is exactly what they did last season.

The only problem I have is that the NCAA needs to move the playoffs from four teams to anywhere around 6-12 teams. Even if that were the case, I don’t think it changes the outcome of last season’s champion.

In agreement with increasing the number of playoff teams.
There will always be arguments about the team(s) left out, but I would say not much of one if you have a 16 team format.

 

[iahawks10]

Really, and how would that solve the problem. By all accounts, Iowa played a much tougher schedule last season then Alabama. Who played in the championship? Oh thats right, the team that played a bunch of non conference cupcakes......

According to teamrankings.com Alabama played a non conf SOS of 13 compared to Iowa’s SOS of 20.

That was before the playoffs/bowls. After the playoffs/bowls it was Alabama 5 and Iowa 19.

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/non-conference-sos-by-other?date=2017-12-05

 

[iahawks10]

In agreement with increasing the number of playoff teams.
There will always be arguments about the team(s) left out, but I would say not much of one if you have a 16 team format.

Agree. I feel a little less sorry for the team left out who’s ranked around 17th as I do the 5th best team.

 

[LuteHawk]

The Big Ten was meant to have only 10 teams.
However, TV revenue and the BTN changed that
thinking. Penn St &. Nebraska were invited to the
Big Ten because of their great college football
history. Rutgers and Maryland were invited due to
their population of TV viewers.

14 teams are too many for the goal of every team
playing each other once in football. Teams that
can avoid Ohio St., Penn St, and Mich. St. have
an advantage. Teams that play Illinois, Rutgers,
and Indiana have an advantage..

 

[rchawk]

Teams that
can avoid Ohio St., Penn St, and Mich. St. have
an advantage. Teams that play Illinois, Rutgers,
and Indiana have an advantage..

When you play three division crossover games as opposed to two with an eight game schedule, the advantage is somewhat reduced.

 

[20Hawkeye14]

I'm in favor of 10 conference games. The playoffs aren't everything, everybody should enjoy the season just as much as the 1 bowl game the team is in.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

listening to these guys talk about how the B1G should get more consideration for its larger number of conference scheduled opponents and number of power 5 opponents, it occurs to me:

1. No one outside the B1G really cares.

2. The CFP committee has maintained one thing above all else: Their subjective estimates of team strength are paramount.

3. The CFP committee has demonstrated that they will punish teams harder for early losses than for lack of tougher opponents and are NOT married to Conf titles. Alabama getting in over OSU is a perfect example last year.

4. Their methodology seems to have put a rested, under stressed monster in place to rightfully, and rather easily, claim another nauseating title. This validates #2.

Rather than help ‘sell’ our rightful place in the CFP, we’ve adopted a scheduling system that will produce teams with more losses, more bruising battles and more chance of injury. Our maneuvering at the conference and media level to insinuate that we deserve a spot, or that the system owes us more clarity or that the SEC gets too much respect are seen, rightly, as ways to get around point #2 above.

TL;DR VERSION; 9 CONFERENCE GAMES WAS A DUMB MOVE. LIFE ISNT FAIR. ALABAMA WAS OBVIOUSLY THE BEST TEAM LAST YEAR AND THE CFPC WASNT FOOLED.

Only thing I'd disagree with is that Bama was the best team last year. F*** Bama.

 

[grayhair81]

People still moaning about Alabama getting into the playoffs last year. "They played such a week schedule . . ."
Their non-con schedule: Fresno State (10-4 and won their bowl game), Florida State (had their worst season in years but still managed to win a bowl game. I don't think any sane person would say scheduling them is loading up on cupcakes), Colo St-went 7-5 and lost their bowl game, and Mercer. So one perennial powerhouse who happened to have a down year (who was the last non-con powerhouse Iowa played?), two teams that are consistently second or third-tier programs in football, and one cupcake. Their side of the SEC was down somewhat but still would be a tough schedule for anyone. They lost at Auburn. That would be the equivalent of OSU losing at Michigan. Oh, and OSU lost TWO games, including their wood-shedding at Iowa. I wouldn't believe anyone would even argue this except for the insanity I see expressed every day anymore.

 

[HobbieHawk]

Dump the ISU game so we can have a home and home with Notre Dame.

FIFY

 

[HawkRose]

I’m good with 9 and would be for pushing it to 10. Let’s face it the chances of your team competing for a conf champ is a more balanced system that your team is in every year.

I know it will never happen but 13 conf schedule would be amazing as a fan. Too much stock put in playoff system that has extreme bias to marquee schools. I just like watching my team play quality games.

Playoffs need to go 8. Conf champ never left out from big 5. 3 at large. If a conference has a crap year seed the winner of it 8th.

 

[mrF6n6]

I would much prefer 10 conference games than 8.
the dilemma with going to 10 conference games is that teams would lose a home game...

10 conference games = 5 home / 5 away

the years Iowa plays at Iowa State = 6 home games.

9 conference games seems to be a perfect number at this time.
I would be in favor of going to 13 games... but make it a rule that teams can only schedule one non Power 5 team

either that or go to a 16 team playoff.

 

[iahawks10]

People still moaning about Alabama getting into the playoffs last year. "They played such a week schedule . . ."
Their non-con schedule: Fresno State (10-4 and won their bowl game), Florida State (had their worst season in years but still managed to win a bowl game. I don't think any sane person would say scheduling them is loading up on cupcakes), Colo St-went 7-5 and lost their bowl game, and Mercer. So one perennial powerhouse who happened to have a down year (who was the last non-con powerhouse Iowa played?), two teams that are consistently second or third-tier programs in football, and one cupcake. Their side of the SEC was down somewhat but still would be a tough schedule for anyone. They lost at Auburn. That would be the equivalent of OSU losing at Michigan. Oh, and OSU lost TWO games, including their wood-shedding at Iowa. I wouldn't believe anyone would even argue this except for the insanity I see expressed every day anymore.

Oddly enough, Georgia’s only regular season loss came against.... you guessed it, Auburn too. UGA lost at Auburn 40-17. Not too many people are talking about Georgia’s games against Samford, but are quick to bring up Mercer every time this topic comes up. Not many people talk about how much easier it is to win the SEC East as opposed to the SEC West. Last year the SEC seemed down, but the SEC West still had four ranked teams and only UGA out of the East.

 

[mrF6n6]

you would think a team that has won the NC 5 out of 9 years could do better than scheduling 3 non Power 5 teams which includes a 5n6 FCS team.

clearly they are manipulating the system and I believe its bad for college football.

plus playing more cupcakes allows for you to keep your team fresher through out the season.

Purdue will play 11 Power 5 teams (no FCS)
national champion Alabama will play 9 Power 5 teams (+1 FCS)

something is wrong.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

I love Hawkeye football, but I care about the college football national championship about as much as I care about the real housewives of orange county. The system is skewed, the rich get richer and upper middle class teams like the Hawks are supposed to be perennial also rans.

Getting worked up about the NC is like worrying about the royal wedding...it's really not our thing so who cares. There's a very slim chance Iowa will get into the playoffs some day and I'll be very excited if it ever happens, but I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime, who cares about watching the same teams battle for the mythical title? Yawn.

 

[iahawks10]

you would think a team that has won the NC 5 out of 9 years could do better than scheduling 3 non Power 5 teams which includes a 5n6 FCS team.

clearly they are manipulating the system and I believe its bad for college football.

plus playing more cupcakes allows for you to keep your team fresher through out the season.

Purdue will play 11 Power 5 teams (no FCS)
national champion Alabama will play 9 Power 5 teams (+1 FCS)

something is wrong.

To be fair, Alabama did play 11 P5 teams, six of them which were ranked at the time they played and still went 13-1.

Purdue’s non conf SOS was 9.
Alabama’s non conf SOS was 12.
This is not including playoffs/bowls.

 

[ABYPFCS]

The B1G is at a disadvantage playing 9 conference games if the ACC and SEC only play 8 conference games..

Wish Delaney would have taken these facts under consideration..

This may be the correct answer.

Kind of like when the Big Ten did not allow redshirting, while the other conferences did, or when the Big Ten only allowed 1 team to go to a bowl game and you couldn't go 2 years in a row.

 

[mrF6n6]

To be fair, Alabama did play 11 P5 teams, six of them which were ranked at the time they played and still went 13-1.

Purdue’s non conf SOS was 9.
Alabama’s non conf SOS was 12.
This is not including playoffs/bowls.

yah... I don't think you are being honest.... at all...
if you include Post Season.... Purdue played 12 Power 5 teams last year.

 

[LincolnHawkeye]

I think another model might be, if you don't want any OOC games with these huge conferences we have now. Then, maybe start the season with 10-12 conference games, then after that, have a 16 team playoff since no one has played any OOC games to decide which conference is actually strong. Teams that don't make the playoff can go to bowls. Simple, easy

 

[DodgerHawki]

Go back to 8 conference games so we can have a home and home with Notre Dame.

Your assumption is that Notre Dame would want a home and home with Iowa. Not be a tool, but ND has lots of options for opponents that are more prestigious or bring them more bang for the buck in getting into recruiting areas than Iowa.

 

[DodgerHawki]

I think another model might be, if you don't want any OOC games with these huge conferences we have now. Then, maybe start the season with 10-12 conference games, then after that, have a 16 team playoff since no one has played any OOC games to decide which conference is actually strong. Teams that don't make the playoff can go to bowls. Simple, easy

I would agree that a 16 or 24-team playoff would really start to benefit teams who play good schedules. Right now the committee is using the eyeball test among all other things, and will continue to do that as long as it's just the 4-team playoff.

 

[pacnorthhawkeye]

1. Alabama is the obvious best team almost every year anymore. Why don’t we just crown them in September and be done with it? Problem solved.

2. WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING?

 

[DodgerHawki]

you would think a team that has won the NC 5 out of 9 years could do better than scheduling 3 non Power 5 teams which includes a 5n6 FCS team.

clearly they are manipulating the system and I believe its bad for college football.

plus playing more cupcakes allows for you to keep your team fresher through out the season.

Purdue will play 11 Power 5 teams (no FCS)
national champion Alabama will play 9 Power 5 teams (+1 FCS)

something is wrong.

Alabama isn't really manipulating the system. Their history has given them a cache unlike any other team. And one can't really blame them for it. They have no reason to play good OOC schedule as the committee will give them the benefit of the doubt based on their history with the playoff.

No one is forcing Purdue to play 11 P5 teams, that is of their own doing.

 

[iahawks10]

yah... I don't think you are being honest.... at all...
if you include Post Season.... Purdue played 12 Power 5 teams last year.

Here is the Non Conf SOS at the end of the regular season.
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/non-conference-sos-by-other?date=2017-12-14


Here is the non conf SOS which includes playoffs/bowls. Alabama 5 and Purdue 13.
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/non-conference-sos-by-other?date=2018-01-15

Here is the SOS which includes all games:
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/sos-basic-by-other?date=2018-01-08