What competitive purpose do OOC games

[CJHawkeyes]

serve if the BCS does nothing to encourage strong scheduling? Using last season's final AP Top 25, there are seven OOC games scheduled for this year that match top 25 teams. Four of those include Notre Dame. Only eight 2006 OOC games matched top 25 teams based on the 2006 AP poll and three included Notre Dame. The AP top 25 was 91-2 in OOC regular season games last year versus teams ranked outside the top 25. Those two losses include Oregon's "win" versus Oklahoma and Arizona's last second win versus BYU.

Perhaps, my thinking is wrong and it is to be expected that top 25 teams would be so successful in OOC games. If they weren't, they likely would not be top 25 teams. However, if most of these teams do nothing to challenge themselves in OOC play, OOC games don't do much to separate teams. The AP top 25 teams played 109 OOC regular season games last year. Based on my own ranking system, 58 of those games were versus I-AA opponents or teams ranked 73rd or lower. 83 games were versus teams ranked lower than the number of teams receiving votes in the AP poll.

Although I cannot stand that an unbeaten season does not guarantee a shot at the national title, so long as college football is limited to a two team playoff, an unbeaten season should be less of a guarantee if college football wants to encourage meaningful games .

[Trojangles]

Not much, CJ, but here's a couple of quick fixes that would correct the problem in short order:

1.NCAA Stats - Both individual and team statistics would not be counted/recorded in games played against non-Division 1-A foes.

Result: Division 1-A players would not get to unfairly fatten their performance stats against lesser competition, and Division 1-A schools would not be able to include such games in their win-loss column. This simple change would both level the playing field for Divison 1-A stats and have an immediate impact on OOC scheduling.

2. Road Game Credit - All computer formulas used in the BCS rankings would penalize teams (on a sliding scale) that play more than half their games at home, with 6 home and 6 away games considered an optimum schedule).

Result: This change would immediately level the playing field in terms of BCS rankings fairness. And, as schools moved to increase their home and home scheduling, they would tend to seek out opponents that would produce good attendance revenue.

[Don]

Not much, CJ, but here's a couple of quick fixes that would correct the problem in short order:

1.NCAA Stats - Both individual and team statistics would not be counted/recorded in games played against non-Division 1-A foes.

Result: Division 1-A players would not get to unfairly fatten their performance stats against lesser competition, and Division 1-A schools would not be able to include such games in their win-loss column. This simple change would both level the playing field for Divison 1-A stats and have an immediate impact on OOC scheduling.

2. Road Game Credit - All computer formulas used in the BCS rankings would penalize teams (on a sliding scale) that play more than half their games at home, with 6 home and 6 away games considered an optimum schedule).

Result: This change would immediately level the playing field in terms of BCS rankings fairness. And, as schools moved to increase their home and home scheduling, they would tend to seek out opponents that would produce good attendance revenue.



over the past 10 years and you would penalize every single BCS schooll plus some that you might not expect. E.g., Hawaii had played more home games than anyone over the past 10 years! What exactly would this prove?

[CJHawkeyes]

Not much, CJ, but here's a couple of quick fixes that would correct the problem in short order:

1.NCAA Stats - Both individual and team statistics would not be counted/recorded in games played against non-Division 1-A foes.

Result: Division 1-A players would not get to unfairly fatten their performance stats against lesser competition, and Division 1-A schools would not be able to include such games in their win-loss column. This simple change would both level the playing field for Divison 1-A stats and have an immediate impact on OOC scheduling.

2. Road Game Credit - All computer formulas used in the BCS rankings would penalize teams (on a sliding scale) that play more than half their games at home, with 6 home and 6 away games considered an optimum schedule).

Result: This change would immediately level the playing field in terms of BCS rankings fairness. And, as schools moved to increase their home and home scheduling, they would tend to seek out opponents that would produce good attendance revenue.


Not sure the first would do much good. Obviously, I-AA games are scheduled to generate revenue. I doubt there is much concern over discounting the stats in order to discourage such games. Might as well eliminate them altogether which is what I'd definitely like to see. As for location, although my own system does not pay attention to that, its not a bad idea. However, I suspect the top teams would still play 7-8 home games because the role "computers" play now is too small to worry about it. And even if more road games are played, the top 25 teams may still be playing weaklings.

As far as I'm concerned, the best case scenario is to eliminate I-AA games, require equal home and away games, and adopt objective rules that encourage teams to play winners. However, equal home and way schedules is the least important of these. If teams knowingly schedule OOC home games versus weaklings with less expectation that an unbeaten season will put them in the title game, so be it. As things stand, the only thing that hurts an unbeaten major is two or more others.

[HellYeahHokie]

I can assure you that if the BCS enacted any sort of real penalties that cost teams that schedule 7-8 home games per year, you would get an immediate push for an all-conference playoff. There is NO way schools that seat 65,000-100,000+ fans are going to give up that revenue stream so they can travel on the road to a school Idaho and their 14,000 seat stadium. Rather, schools would just accept a playoff scenario that allowed them to win their conference as their ticket to the post-season. Then they would be happy to schedule all remaining home games for their OOC opponents.

The NCAA has no authority to set scheduling restrictions like that, and wouldn't if it did. For some schools, it just pays better to go on the road against a big school than it does to stay home in a small stadium with minimal fan support. And why would the NCAA want to change that?

Let's not forget, that while people are all wringing hands about the horrible financial inequities that big schools have for scheduling home games, these monies predominantly fund the non-revenue sports at most schools. Big football schools also tend to have big non-revenue sports. Take away football money and you can see tennis teams and lacrosse teams relegated to club status.

So is the goal to make sure that Middle Tennessee State has the same track and field opportunities as Arkansas? Because then you would have to make sure that Arkansas, with their state-of-the-art track and field facilities doesn't host any more track meets than North Dakota...because that's the only way to be equitable.

[Trojangles]

Good points, Hokie, but I have to disagree with your premise:

1. NCAA Stats - The NCAA has the authority to make changes in this area, so eliminating stats from games with less than Division 1-A foes could be easily accomplished.

2. Road Game Credit - The math used within the various BCS computer formulas is pretty much under the control of the gurus who operate them, and, at least one computer wiz has already begun giving less credit to teams that don't play many road games. So, this change could also be easily made, by having the rest of the gurus follow suit.

Footnote: As "fear and greed" appear to be the driving factors of those who opt to play meanless OOC games on a continuing basis. I say, let them continue to do so . . . , but just don't reward them for doing it.

[Don]

Not sure the first would do much good. Obviously, I-AA games are scheduled to generate revenue. I doubt there is much concern over discounting the stats in order to discourage such games. Might as well eliminate them altogether which is what I'd definitely like to see. As for location, although my own system does not pay attention to that, its not a bad idea. However, I suspect the top teams would still play 7-8 home games because the role "computers" play now is too small to worry about it. And even if more road games are played, the top 25 teams may still be playing weaklings.

As far as I'm concerned, the best case scenario is to eliminate I-AA games, require equal home and away games, and adopt objective rules that encourage teams to play winners. However, equal home and way schedules is the least important of these. If teams knowingly schedule OOC home games versus weaklings with less expectation that an unbeaten season will put them in the title game, so be it. As things stand, the only thing that hurts an unbeaten major is two or more others.


I'm not exactly who you are throwing stones at but...

Here are the top 4 teams in the final AP poll over the past 10 years sorted by the number of ranked opponents that each played during the year.

1998 Arizona 1
1999 Virginia Tech 1
2003 USC 1
1997 Michigan 2
2000 Oregon St. 2
2001 Oregon 2
2003 Oklahoma 2
2004 Texas 2
2004 Oklahoma 2
2005 Penn St. 2
2005 Ohio St. 2
1997 Florida St. 3
1998 Ohio St. 3
1999 Florida St. 3
2000 Washington 3
2000 Miami (FL) 3
2002 Georgia 3
2002 Ohio St. 3
2004 USC 3
2005 Texas 3
2006 Ohio St. 3
1997 Nebraska 4
1998 Tennessee 4
1999 Wisconsin 4
2000 Oklahoma 4
2003 Ohio St. 4
2003 LSU 4
2004 Auburn 4
2005 USC 4
2006 USC 4
2006 LSU 4
1998 Florida St. 5
1999 Nebraska 5
2001 Miami (FL) 5
2002 USC 5
2002 Miami (FL) 5
2006 Florida 5
1997 Florida 6
2001 Tennessee 6
2001 Florida 6

I will point out three things.

#1) Of the 40 teams, 37 have played more than 1 ranked opponent during the season. The average number of ranked opponents was 3.425 per team. Thus the strategy of teams "padding" their schedules with patsies so as to end up highly ranked doesn't seem to work too well.

#2) Of the 40 teams 9 were SEC teams and that none played fewer than 3 ranked opponents. Eight of the nine SEC teams played more than the average of 3.425 teams (only the 2002 UGa team played 3 ranked opponents) and that the 3 teams that played the most ranked opponents were SEC teams. Conversely, there were 8 PAC 10 teams in the 40 and 5 of the 8 played fewer ranked teams than the average.

#3) You will notice that only 3 teams have ended up in the final 4 while playing only ONE ranked team. Those are USC, Arizona, and VT. In each case the sole ranked opponent was an IN-conference opponent. Conversely, the SEC 3 teams that played 6 ranked opponents all played at least one ranked OOC opponent and in 1997 UF played 2 ranked OOC teams.

I agree that teams should play quality opponents IF they are to be considered for any playoff JUST make sure you look at the entire schedule!

[EvilVodka]

All the OOC whining is overblown...

Basically you're saying there's no incentive for Ohio State to play Texas, USC to play Notre Dame, Florida to play FSU, Virginia Tech to play LSU, etc.

so if there's no incentive, why are these games scheduled?

another "glass is half empty" argument by CJ :eek:

[Don]

...2. Road Game Credit - The math used within the various BCS computer formulas is pretty much under the control of the gurus who operate them, and, at least one computer wiz has already begun giving less credit to teams that don't play many road games. So, this change could also be easily made, by having the rest of the gurus follow suit.

Footnote: As "fear and greed" appear to be the driving factors of those who opt to play meanless OOC games on a continuing basis. I say, let them continue to do so . . . , but just don't reward them for doing it.

I have NO problem with giving a bonus to road games PROVIDE that it is worth it. Simply to give credit to a team for playing on the road is total crap. For a top tier team playing a #50+ team on the road deserves NO extra credit as they will crush them even playing them on the moon. Now, playing a top 25 team on the road is TOTALLY different and I have no problem with giving a "push" to the SOS for that game.

[CJHawkeyes]

All the OOC whining is overblown...

Basically you're saying there's no incentive for Ohio State to play Texas, USC to play Notre Dame, Florida to play FSU, Virginia Tech to play LSU, etc.

so if there's no incentive, why are these games scheduled?

another "glass is half empty" argument by CJ :eek:

Whining? If teams don't wish to play stronger OOC competition, that is fine. I just think the incentive to do so should be greater. What is the incentive to play those games anyway? If you are the loser, the odds of overtaking an unbeaten major who chose to play the likes of Florida International instead are very slim. If Ohio State loses to Michigan, beating Texas means no more than beating Duke. The fact that a handful of teams are willing to play such games does not mean these games are in their best interest under the BCS. Top 25 teams played 37 of 109 OOC games versus teams 97th or lower or from I-AA.

Personally, I find it amazing that arguing in favor of more attractive OOC games is a bad thing.

[CJHawkeyes]

Don,

I'm not throwing stones at anyone in particular. I'm just arguing that the BCS does nothing to encourage stronger OOC scheduling and I think it would be better if it did. Without looking, I imagine most of the teams you listed with a high number of ranked opponents fared better under my system than in the polls. That said, playing a high number of ranked opponents could be due to a team's entire conference loading up on OOC weaklings followed by the top half dominating the bottom half of the conference. I'm not saying such teams shouldn't be ranked high under these circumstances, but rather that the number of ranked opponents is due more to happenstance than courageous scheduling.

Another point, since 1978, only eight teams with a loss or tie have finished the regular season ranked higher than an unbeaten major. Florida State did this five times. Basically, the only purpose SOS serves is to eliminate nonBCS schools which is a large reason for the disparity. BCS teams are essientially ranked best to worst record. Even in the case of multiple one-loss teams, SOS takes a backseast to when you lose.

[HellYeahHokie]

Good points, Hokie, but I have to disagree with your premise:


My premise is that teams that can, will schedule as many home games as possible. There's too much money to be made to do otherwise.

Therefore, if there comes a time when the BCS formula will seriously hurt a team for scheduling lots of home games, then the BCS will be scrapped in favor of a playoff. Because then schools wouldn't worry about a BCS formula, and only worry about winning their conference to make the playoff. Then their OOC schedule would be irrelevant.

So what are you disagreeing with?

Regarding stats: I think I agree with someone who said, schools won't give a damn about Johnny Quarterback's statistical records compared to the money generated from home games. The program is always bigger than the individuals who matriculate through. So the NCAA removing player stats played against Div-IAA schools won't change any team's scheduling strategy. I like the idea in general, however.

[CJHawkeyes]

My premise is that teams that can, will schedule as many home games as possible. There's too much money to be made to do otherwise.

Therefore, if there comes a time when the BCS formula will seriously hurt a team for scheduling lots of home games, then the BCS will be scrapped in favor of a playoff. Because then schools wouldn't worry about a BCS formula, and only worry about winning their conference to make the playoff. Then their OOC schedule would be irrelevant.

So what are you disagreeing with?

Regarding stats: I think I agree with someone who said, schools won't give a damn about Johnny Quarterback's statistical records compared to the money generated from home games. The program is always bigger than the individuals who matriculate through. So the NCAA removing player stats played against Div-IAA schools won't change any team's scheduling strategy. I like the idea in general, however.


While I would like to see it, I don't think equal home and away schedules is practical. However, I do think eliminating I-AA games and adopting rules that encourage teams to schedule winners would greatly improve OOC scheduling. Perhaps, allowing I-AA games would be ok so long as their value in the standings is very limited. For example, with respect to the rules I favor, I have determined the results with I-AA games included with each result having the same value as the worst I-A win or loss. As such, teams can have their 7-8 home games and play I-AA teams, but a win would be worth as much as beating Florida International in 2006. Basically, schools could schedule games for the revenue but hurt themselves in the standings. If you know a I-AA win is always only as good as the worst I-A win whereas any I-A opponent has the potential to be much better than expected ( UCF went from 0-11 to 8-3 in one year) and you still schedule a I-AA opponent for the revenue, so be it. However, right now, such games are win-win. Schools get their money and an easy win with no penalty.

[EvilVodka]

Whining? If teams don't wish to play stronger OOC competition, that is fine. I just think the incentive to do so should be greater. What is the incentive to play those games anyway? If you are the loser, the odds of overtaking an unbeaten major who chose to play the likes of Florida International instead are very slim. If Ohio State loses to Michigan, beating Texas means no more than beating Duke. The fact that a handful of teams are willing to play such games does not mean these games are in their best interest under the BCS. Top 25 teams played 37 of 109 OOC games versus teams 97th or lower or from I-AA.

Personally, I find it amazing that arguing in favor of more attractive OOC games is a bad thing.

The problem I have with your argument is all the holes in it...

1st off, you can't have a generalized sweeping view of OOC scheduling...the strength and opponents change from year to year for each team...

2nd..."Top 25 teams played 37 of 109 OOC blah blahblah" <--- this means nothing unless you want to point out each and every case
Whats wrong with Oregon scheduling Portland state if they want to? or Idaho? or any regional school or college? Who's to criticize if someone has to schedule Podunk State Tech A&M if some other program back out of a game?

3rd, why is no credit being given to the tons of good OOC match-ups that exist?

[Don]

While I would like to see it, I don't think equal home and away schedules is practical. However, I do think eliminating I-AA games and adopting rules that encourage teams to schedule winners would greatly improve OOC scheduling. Perhaps, allowing I-AA games would be ok so long as their value in the standings is very limited. For example, with respect to the rules I favor, I have determined the results with I-AA games included with each result having the same value as the worst I-A win or loss. As such, teams can have their 7-8 home games and play I-AA teams, but a win would be worth as much as beating Florida International in 2006. Basically, schools could schedule games for the revenue but hurt themselves in the standings. If you know a I-AA win is always only as good as the worst I-A win whereas any I-A opponent has the potential to be much better than expected ( UCF went from 0-11 to 8-3 in one year) and you still schedule a I-AA opponent for the revenue, so be it. However, right now, such games are win-win. Schools get their money and an easy win with no penalty.


Right now many of the computer "penalize" teams MORE than what you are proposing! I would like to see what would happen to Florida in the "Howell Computer Rankings" in the game against Western Carolina in 2006 was completely removed as if the game were never played. I would like also to see what would happen to Florida in the "Howell Computer Rankings" in the game against Georgia Southern in 1996 was completely removed.

[CJHawkeyes]

The problem I have with your argument is all the holes in it...

1st off, you can't have a generalized sweeping view of OOC scheduling...the strength and opponents change from year to year for each team...

2nd..."Top 25 teams played 37 of 109 OOC blah blahblah" <--- this means nothing unless you want to point out each and every case
Whats wrong with Oregon scheduling Portland state if they want to? or Idaho? or any regional school or college? Who's to criticize if someone has to schedule Podunk State Tech A&M if some other program back out of a game?

3rd, why is no credit being given to the tons of good OOC match-ups that exist?


There is no generalized sweeping view. I understand that some opponents aren't as good as expected in some years and some teams are forced to play games for reasons beyond their control, but there are hardly tons of good matchups compared to the number of stinkers. Besides, some opponents have demonstrated a greater consistency for winning that they can be counted on to be as good as expected to a higher degree. This is especially true if teams wait to schedule games until the strength of possible opponenst is more predictable. Again, there are seven OOC matchups this year between teams that finished ranked in the AP top 25 last year and four of those involve Notre Dame. What's wrong with Oregon scheduling Portland State? How about the fact that the game serves no competititive purpose? That said, I'm necessarily suggesting that these teams be prevented from scheduling such games, but rather that if they do, the potential for being passed in the standings by teams with lesser records be greater than they are now assuming the latter actually play they strong schedules. Why is that a bad thing?

[CJHawkeyes]

Right now many of the computer "penalize" teams MORE than what you are proposing! I would like to see what would happen to Florida in the "Howell Computer Rankings" in the game against Western Carolina in 2006 was completely removed as if the game were never played. I would like also to see what would happen to Florida in the "Howell Computer Rankings" in the game against Georgia Southern in 1996 was completely removed.


I can't speak for how much other computers penalize teams for playing such games. Technically, I don't think penalize is what I mean to say. I think the difference between the reward for such wins and the penalties for losses to top teams should minimal to the point that its much more worth it play a top team even at the risk of a loss. I don't believe that is the case under the BCS. As for Florida, if those games are removed from their resumes, the value of their resumes should decrease as any win should be worth more than if they never played WCU or GSU.

[EvilVodka]

What's wrong with Oregon scheduling Portland State? How about the fact that the game serves no competititive purpose?

IMO, this is a selfish, subjective, and unrealistic viewpoint

If Oregon wants to schedule an in-state school, no entity such as the BCS or NCAA should have any say

If you're not entertained by the game, don't watch it

[CJHawkeyes]

EV,

First of all, I want to concede that there are more attractive matchups than my narrow definition (top 25 matchups) implies. That said, our discussion isn't really related to my premise for this thread. I'm not criticizing anyone's schedules. I criticizing the BCS because it does nothing to encourage strong OOC games. While I commend the teams that do play attractive OOC games, these games have no real strategic value. The margin for error under the BCS is still, for the most part, one loss. The VT-LSU winner gains nothing if it loses a subsequent game and there are two unbeaten majors left standing. Even if the winner is one of three or more unbeatens or among a group of one-loss teams in contention for a title berth, there is defnitely no guarantee playing this game will put them over the top. Basically, my argument is that under the BCS, Florida International is a more desirable opponent than Florida because the room for error is limited and the odds of a one-loss team overtaking an unbeaten are highly unlikely. Therefore, such games amount to an unecessary risk which is why there aren't as many attractive games as there could be.


As for the Oregon-Portland State matter, I fail to see how my declaration that such a game serves no competitive purpose is selfish or unrealistic. Subjective yes, but if someone can show me how two schools that compete in different classifications and one has no business losing to the other ever serves a competitive purpose, I'll change my mind. However, we have approximately 12 games to narrow 120 teams (technically) down to 2. Therefore, what competitive purpose does it serve to allow I-A teams to waste any portion of their schedule on games that winning teams always win? That said, why can't the BCS and NCAA set limits on scheduling? There are already limits in place. Oregon can't play Division II teams and can't exceed 12 regular season games minus exceptions for trips to Hawaii and a CCG which the Pac-10 does not have. If BCS and NCAA members pass a rule eliminating I-AA games that Oregon objects to, what exactly could they do about it? Oregon is already subject to rules that are not in their best interest as is. Oregon missed out on a BCS bowl and millions to a lower ranked Notre Dame in 2005 for non-competitive reasons. Did they stupidly agree to such rules?