Good Ol' SEC style non-conference scheduling

[Blue Hen]

For 2007.....

90% of all the SEC n/c games are 'home' games

Almost half ( 46% ) of the SEC n/c games are home games vs D1AA or Sun Belt teams.

One of every 5 SEC n/c games is vs D1AA competition !!

Hey..it works. That scheduling strategy fools the pollsters, inflates W-L records and produces post season exhibition game revenue. The other leagues have been catching on to the SEC scheduling system. It's good business, and I think most of us realize that big time CF is more of a business than a sport.

[GatorGrad]

Of course it's about business. Money, money, and more money! The SEC can send over half of their league to bowl games which payout big money which the conference splits among their 12 schools. The extra revenue that home games produce combined with the extra revenue that the bowl bids produce (which result from extra wins) is hard to turn down.

Which is why I spend more time worrying about the SEC race than I do worrying about non conference games and bowl games. Those are about money, no doubt. But the SEC race itself is fair and pure. To me, my college football season comes down to those 8 SEC games. Win your division, and you get to play for an undisputed SEC Championship in Atlanta against the other division winner. All determined on the field with game results and standings. No polls, computers, etc. No "co-champs" either. The stadiums are electric, and the competition is fantastic.

I wish more fans would quit worrying about the BCS and learn to enjoy their own conference races more. They are special. I would hate to be a Notre Dame fan with no conference race to follow, and only a mythical national championship race to care about. To me, the 2007 College Football Season is all about our games against Tennessee, Ole Miss, LSU, Auburn, Kentucky, Georgia, Vanderbilt, and South Carolina. Then if we're lucky, the SEC West Champ in Atlanta. That is our Super Bowl. That one is for the rings. That is what counts and can never be disputed. We have 7 SEC Championships, and I have enjoyed every one of them.

[CJHawkeyes]

Of course it's about business. Money, money, and more money! The SEC can send over half of their league to bowl games which payout big money which the conference splits among their 12 schools. The extra revenue that home games produce combined with the extra revenue that the bowl bids produce (which result from extra wins) is hard to turn down.

Which is why I spend more time worrying about the SEC race than I do worrying about non conference games and bowl games. Those are about money, no doubt. But the SEC race itself is fair and pure. To me, my college football season comes down to those 8 SEC games. Win your division, and you get to play for an undisputed SEC Championship in Atlanta against the other division winner. All determined on the field with game results and standings. No polls, computers, etc. No "co-champs" either. The stadiums are electric, and the competition is fantastic.

I wish more fans would quit worrying about the BCS and learn to enjoy their own conference races more. They are special. I would hate to be a Notre Dame fan with no conference race to follow, and only a mythical national championship race to care about. To me, the 2007 College Football Season is all about our games against Tennessee, Ole Miss, LSU, Auburn, Kentucky, Georgia, Vanderbilt, and South Carolina. Then if we're lucky, the SEC West Champ in Atlanta. That is our Super Bowl. That one is for the rings. That is what counts and can never be disputed. We have 7 SEC Championships, and I have enjoyed every one of them.

At this point I'd rather see the Big Ten add someone, have them and the SEC play round robin schedules with the champions meeting for the "league" title. I can't stand the subjectiveness, the lack of uniformity, and scheduling like that mentioned in the OP that college football embraces.

[Blue Hen]

I like the way you view college football, GG............and completely agree that conference championships are the only 'real' ( non voted ) competitive thing that big time CF has to offer. We should all learn to appreciate the great conference competition with its balanced scheduling.

[GatorGrad]

CJ - I would have no problem with the SEC going to an 11-game round robin with no CCG. As long as there was a tiebreaker system in place to determine ONE and only one undisputed champ. So if two teams finish 10-1, you go to head to head. If it's three teams and each team is 1-1 against each other, there must be tiebreakers in place to mathmatically determine ONE champ. I hate co champs. It's bad enough to have them at the national championship level, there is no good reason why we should have them at the conference level when there are 12 or less teams!

But I must admit, the CCG format with the two divisions is very exciting. It allows for teams to set an easier first goal of simply winning their divisions. It keeps more teams in the race longer, and the title game is awesome. So while I wouldn't have a problem with an 11-game round robin, I actually like the CCG format better. And 11 SEC games isn't going to happen anytime soon as it would cost teams wins for bowl eligibility and home game revenue which as discussed above, is not something that SEC programs will likely support.

What's the word in the Big Ten? Are they going to wait for Notre Dame forever? What's wrong with adding a Syracuse, Pit, or Mizzou? The Big Ten WILL eventually go to 12 teams. It's not a matter of if but when IMO.

[CJHawkeyes]

GG,

I have no knowledge of Big Ten expansion plans. I just wish somebody would have the best interests of this sport in mind. I can't stand how money ruins this sport. Bottom line is that I'd rather Iowa play a uniform schedule with all games having a known value in the standings with first place guaranteeing a berth is some kind of playoff. I don't care if is just the Big Ten involved or other conferences too.

[Don]

For 2007.....

90% of all the SEC n/c games are 'home' games

Almost half ( 46% ) of the SEC n/c games are home games vs D1AA or Sun Belt teams.

One of every 5 SEC n/c games is vs D1AA competition !!

Hey..it works. That scheduling strategy fools the pollsters, inflates W-L records and produces post season exhibition game revenue. The other leagues have been catching on to the SEC scheduling system. It's good business, and I think most of us realize that big time CF is more of a business than a sport.

IF, as you say, the SEC pads its schedules to over inflate the SEC's real strength then that should be reflected in the OOC results. That is when an "supposedly good" SEC team plays a "good" OOC BCS team, the SEC team should lose. Of course this SHOULD be quite evident in games played ranked vs ranked. I mean the SEC has fooled the stupid pollsters, right?

Fact: Over the past 15 years in games of ranked vs ranked at year's end.

Big Ten (48-34-1)--0.58434
SEC (50-36-1)--0.58046
Big Eight (8-6-0)--0.57143
ACC (39-40-1)--0.49375
Pac-10 (32-33-0)--0.49231
Big East (28-34-0)--0.45161
Independent (17-21-1)--0.44872
Big 12 (19-30-0)--0.38776

Ironically, IF UF had beaten FSU in 1994 instead of it ending in a tie, the SEC would be 51-36-0 --0.58621 and would have the BEST record.

I can already here you crying. So even though you claimed that the SEC schedules were fooling the pollsters I'll get rid of rankings and use winning percentages. So an SEC team which has won say 85% or more of its games is really not as good as teams from other conferences that have won 85% or more of their games because the SEC teams pad their w-l records with Sunbelt teams or non-D1A opponents. Right?

Fact: In the past 15 years the SEC has the BEST record of the BCS conferences when looking at games involving teams that have winning percentages of 85% or more and BCS opponents that have winning percentages of 85% or more.

SEC (4-2-0)--0.66667
Big Ten (2-1-1)--0.625
Pac-10 (2-2-0)--0.5
Big Eight (1-1-0)--0.5
ACC (3-3-0)--0.5
Big 12 (1-2-0)--0.33333
Big East (1-4-0)--0.2
Southwest (0-1-0)--0
Independent (2-0-1)--0.83333

Is this too small a sample?

Fact: In the past 15 years the SEC has the BEST record of the BCS conferences when looking at games involving teams that have winning percentages of 80% or more and BCS opponents that have winning percentages of 80% or more.

SEC (11-7-1)--0.60526
Big 12 (6-4-0)--0.6
Pac-10 (6-6-0)--0.5
Big Eight (2-2-0)--0.5
Big Ten (5-6-1)--0.45833
Big East (6-8-0)--0.42857
ACC (7-10-1)--0.41667


Still too small a sample?

Fact: In the past 15 years the SEC has the BEST record of the BCS conferences when looking at games involving teams that have winning percentages of 75% or more and BCS opponents that have winning percentages of 75% or more.

SEC (24-17-1)--0.58333
Pac-10 (20-16-0)--0.55556
Big Eight (6-5-0)--0.54545
Big Ten (21-18-1)--0.5375
ACC (21-19-1)--0.52439
Big 12 (12-12-0)--0.5
Big East (15-20-0)--0.42857


Of course if one looks at "ranked" OOC opponents it is a little worse for the SEC.

Big Ten (48-34-1)--0.58434
SEC (50-36-1)--0.58046
Big Eight (8-6-0)--0.57143
ACC (39-40-1)--0.49375
Pac-10 (32-33-0)--0.49231
Big East (28-34-0)--0.45161
Independent (17-21-1)--0.44872
Big 12 (19-30-0)--0.38776

So much for the SEC teams being OVER-RATED. I know it is so much more fun for you to talk trash about the SEC when you don't have to look at facts.

[tigercpa]

I like the way you view college football, GG............and completely agree that conference championships are the only 'real' ( non voted ) competitive thing that big time CF has to offer. We should all learn to appreciate the great conference competition with its balanced scheduling.

Agree, but you have to play round robin in order to be the real champ. I hate the CCG format.

If you missed 3 of the teams in conference, you don't know if you would ave won or lost those games.

Cut every conference to a 10 team limit, play full round robin and 2 OOC games.

[Blue Hen]

jeez Don, what are you talking about...with all the stuff from SEC sites. Where in my post does it say anything about the SEC being overrated ? I just pointed out that almost half the SEC non conference games are home games vs Sun Belt and 1AA teams ( to inflate money making W-L records)..and it works. The pollsters and bowlsters buy it. Your reply has very little relevance. This thread is about scheduling.


BTW, the SEC teams are exactly 80-80 (.500) vs teams from other BCS leagues in the BCS era..........although the SEC teams have had an overwhelming home field or relative home field advantage. You can't get any more average than .500. Keep believing the myth and be happy :-)

[Don]

jeez Don, what are you talking about...with all the stuff from SEC sites. Where in my post does it say anything about the SEC being overrated ? I just pointed out that almost half the SEC non conference games are home games vs Sun Belt and 1AA teams ( to inflate money making W-L records)..and it works. The pollsters and bowlsters buy it. Your reply has very little relevance. This thread is about scheduling.


BTW, the SEC teams are exactly 80-80 (.500) vs teams from other BCS leagues in the BCS era..........although the SEC teams have had an overwhelming home field or relative home field advantage. You can't get any more average than .500. Keep believing the myth and be happy :-)

Your post is not about scheduling; it is a feeble attempt to denigrate the SEC (as usual).


As for your original post:
For 2007.....

90% of all the SEC n/c games are 'home' games

Almost half ( 46% ) of the SEC n/c games are home games vs D1AA or Sun Belt teams.

One of every 5 SEC n/c games is vs D1AA competition !!

Hey..it works. That scheduling strategy fools the pollsters, inflates W-L records and produces post season exhibition game revenue. The other leagues have been catching on to the SEC scheduling system. It's good business, and I think most of us realize that big time CF is more of a business than a sport.

As the rankings WOULD still exist if the SEC teams weren't ranked and the Bowls WOULD be played even if the SEC teams weren't playing in them. So your statement is that the SEC is doing some kind of cheap trick to gain higher rankings than they deserve (compared to other BCS conferences that don't schedule these opponents) and to gain better bowls than they deserve (again at the expense of other BCS conferences that don't schedule these opponents).


1) I didn't get the data from any SEC site I got it from http://www.sportslinknetwork.com/cfbtrivia/teamrecord.php
which queried myself.

2) How was it NOT relevant? It directly refutes your lame assertions. IF as you assert the SEC teams have inflated w-l records which fools the pollsters then:

Why does the SEC rank at the top over the past 15 years is ranked vs ranked games against BCS opponents?

Why does the SEC rank at the top in games of between BCS teams with 0.85 or better over the past 15 years?

Why does the SEC rank at the top in games of between BCS teams with 0.80 or better over the past 15 years?

Why does the SEC rank at the top in games of between BCS teams with 0.75 or better over the past 15 years?

Why does the SEC rank as the top BCS conference in Bowl games over the past 15 years?

SEC (59-41-0)--0.59000
ACC (45-37-0)--0.54878
Big East (33-30-0)--0.52381
Big Ten (47-48-0)--0.49474
Big 12 (36-41-0)--0.46753
Pac-10 (36-42-0)--0.46154

Why does the SEC rank as the top BCS conference in Bowl games against teams ranked over the past 15 years?

SEC (40-29-0)--0.57971
Big Ten (34-36-0)--0.48571
Pac-10 (18-21-0)--0.46154
ACC (20-26-0)--0.43478
Big East (14-20-0)--0.41176
Big 12 (20-30-0)--0.40000

[GatorGrad]

Agree, but you have to play round robin in order to be the real champ. I hate the CCG format.

If you missed 3 of the teams in conference, you don't know if you would ave won or lost those games.

Cut every conference to a 10 team limit, play full round robin and 2 OOC games.

I disagree. If you win your division, then you get to play the top team from the opposite division for the championship. So to win the championship, you have to be the best team in your own division, and then beat the team that was the best team in the other division. If you miss two teams in the conference from the opposite division, it doesn't really matter - unless they won that division, then who cares? Florida won the SEC East and then beat Arkansas (SEC West Winner) in the SEC Title Game. Is their championship not legit just because we didn't play two bottom SEC West teams (Miss St and Ole Miss?)

By this logic, then the Super Bowl Champ is not legit since teams don't play round robin balanced schedules. Same for almost every other sport. That said, I would have no problem with a round robin format as long as there were tiebreakers in place to produce one and only one champion. But I still think that the CCG is fair, makes sense, and is MUCH more exciting.

[Blue Hen]

If the SEC plays .500 ball vs their BCS peers from other leagues ( absolute fact in BCS era, 98-) and the SEC plays 1.000 ball in all their home games vs 1AA and Sunbelt teams, which compromise 46 % of the SEC's non conference opponents.........then yes, these rent-a-win games most definitely inflate the W-L records. I think you are clueless.

[Don]

If the SEC plays .500 ball vs their BCS peers from other leagues ( absolute fact in BCS era, 98-) and the SEC plays 1.000 ball in all their home games vs 1AA and Sunbelt teams, which compromise 46 % of the SEC's non conference opponents.........then yes, these rent-a-win games most definitely inflate the W-L records. I think you are clueless.

That stat is as meaningful as the fact the the SEC is 0.500 IN CONFERENCE over that span!!!

[CJHawkeyes]

That stat is as meaningful as the fact the the SEC is 0.500 IN CONFERENCE over that span!!!

Not even close. While I have no interest in attacking the SEC as I don't know that they are much worse then the other BCS conferences, Blue Hen's point is that SEC rarely challenges itself in OOC games and only has a 50% success rate when it does. If SEC teams played all of their games versus BCS competition and maintained this 50% success rate, they wouldn't have as many ranked members and would not appear as strong as they do when running up inflated records versus so many weaklings. The same holds true for all conferences. This doesn't mean that the SEC isn't the best conference. If anything, the SEC is actually smart for embracing this strategy. The hypocrisy of the BCS is that it ranks its own members best to worst record while facing less parity than everyone else yet pretending they are courageous for playing more talented competition in conference.

[GopherGuy]

I disagree. If you win your division, then you get to play the top team from the opposite division for the championship. So to win the championship, you have to be the best team in your own division, and then beat the team that was the best team in the other division. If you miss two teams in the conference from the opposite division, it doesn't really matter - unless they won that division, then who cares? Florida won the SEC East and then beat Arkansas (SEC West Winner) in the SEC Title Game. Is their championship not legit just because we didn't play two bottom SEC West teams (Miss St and Ole Miss?)

By this logic, then the Super Bowl Champ is not legit since teams don't play round robin balanced schedules. Same for almost every other sport. That said, I would have no problem with a round robin format as long as there were tiebreakers in place to produce one and only one champion. But I still think that the CCG is fair, makes sense, and is MUCH more exciting.

You'd have a point if your division record was what determined the division champion, but it's your entire conference record. So, say Arkansas goes 5-0 in its own division (including a win over Alabama) and goes 1-2 against Florida, Tennessee and Georgia from the other division while Alabama goes 4-1 in its own division but sweeps South Carolina, Vandy and Kentucky. Any reasonable system would say that Arkansas should win the division, but the SEC says that Alabama would win it. The inter-division games should NOT be counted in division standings - it's no different than if you included non-conference games into your record for determining the conference title.

I hope the Big Ten never expands to 12.

[Don]

Not even close. While I have no interest in attacking the SEC as I don't know that they are much worse then the other BCS conferences, Blue Hen's point is that SEC rarely challenges itself in OOC games and only has a 50% success rate when it does. If SEC teams played all of their games versus BCS competition and maintained this 50% success rate, they wouldn't have as many ranked members and would not appear as strong as they do when running up inflated records versus so many weaklings. The same holds true for all conferences. This doesn't mean that the SEC isn't the best conference. If anything, the SEC is actually smart for embracing this strategy. The hypocrisy of the BCS is that it ranks its own members best to worst record while facing less parity than everyone else yet pretending they are courageous for playing more talented competition in conference.

Your comments and his are just what I'm talking about. You say the "SEC doesn't challenges itself in OOC games?"

In the regular season during the "BCS era" UF has a record of 4-7 in games against BCS teams. VT is 12-3 in games against BCS teams. So yes UF has played more D1AA and Non-D1 teams than VT but IF ONE BOTHERS TO LOOK UF did challenge itself. Of the 11 BCS teams UF played 10 were ranked vs 4 for VT out of the 15 teams they played.

You CAN'T JUST COUNT THE NUMBER OF GAMES!!! YOU MUST LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL TEAMS INVOLVED IN EACH GAME!!!!! Stop just bean counting.

[CJHawkeyes]

Your comments and his are just what I'm talking about. You say the "SEC doesn't challenges itself in OOC games?"

In the regular season during the "BCS era" UF has a record of 4-7 in games against BCS teams. VT is 12-3 in games against BCS teams. So yes UF has played more D1AA and Non-D1 teams than VT but IF ONE BOTHERS TO LOOK UF did challenge itself. Of the 11 BCS teams UF played 10 were ranked vs 4 for VT out of the 15 teams they played.

You CAN'T JUST COUNT THE NUMBER OF GAMES!!! YOU MUST LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL TEAMS INVOLVED IN EACH GAME!!!!! Stop just bean counting.

I'm not bean counting anything nor am I even attacking the SEC. If anything, I have always argued that BCS schools as a group are hypocritical when it comes to scheduling. For all practical purposes, BCS teams are ranked best to worst record. They actually play easier schedules relative to the talent the lopsided system guarantees them then pretend they play courageous schedules just by belonging to a BCS conference while nonBCS teams are limited in their ability to even acquire a "legitimate" schedule let alone succeed against it with players mostly unwanted by BCS schools. Bottom line is BCS schools are scheduling cowards and have convinced far too many that the opposite is true.

[GatorGrad]

Bottom line is BCS schools are scheduling cowards and have convinced far too many that the opposite is true.

"Cowards" might be a little harsh. There are many BCS schools who play very tough schedules, both in and out of conference. As a Gator fan, I won't apologize for playing a cupcake every now and then. Our schedule always ranks near the top. We play programs like Tennessee, LSU, Georgia, and FSU year in and year out. These are not rotated games - this is every year. We also rotate in programs like Auburn, Miami, Alabama, etc. Last year, we played the NCAA-rated #1 SOS and finished as the #1 team and beat the #2 and #3 teams (OSU and LSU) by double digits each. I don't know what else we could have done.

The system we have encourages some of the coward scheduling that you speak of. What are teams supposed to do? Load up on four tough OOC games in addition to their 8 (or 9) game conference schedule? For what? What is the benefit? It will cost them money in home game revenue, money in bowl revenue, and in the current BCS landscape, where wins and losses play such a large role since there is no playoff, it can cost teams MNC opportunities. So really, there is not too much incentive for schools to play tough OOC games. If there was a playoff, it would help.

That's why it's all about the SEC race for me...don't worry about OOC or Bowl Games. They are just for rivalries, money, and fun.

[Blue Hen]

You're straying off topic there, Don......which is the wimpy non conference scheduling ideology of the SEC.

If the SEC wanted to really challenge itself it would play many, many more regular season road games vs BCS peers.............but most CF afficionados know why it doesn't do that. All you have to do is look at the record :

SEC vs BCS conference opponents in regular season road games
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

1998) 1-4
1999) 2-2
2000) 1-3
2001) 3-2
2002) 0-9..................that's right, the mighty SEC was 0-9
2003) 6-2
2004) 1-1
2005) 3-3
2006) 0-2


That's 17-28 on road vs people their own size. That's an underwhelming .378 success rate, Don. Compare that with the 1000% success rate playing Sun Belt and 1AA teams at home...........and seriously tell us that the SEC doesn't need these 'rent-a-win' games to artificially inflate the W-L records. It most definitely fools the pollsters and bowlsters.

[GatorGrad]

You'd have a point if your division record was what determined the division champion, but it's your entire conference record. So, say Arkansas goes 5-0 in its own division (including a win over Alabama) and goes 1-2 against Florida, Tennessee and Georgia from the other division while Alabama goes 4-1 in its own division but sweeps South Carolina, Vandy and Kentucky. Any reasonable system would say that Arkansas should win the division, but the SEC says that Alabama would win it. The inter-division games should NOT be counted in division standings - it's no different than if you included non-conference games into your record for determining the conference title.

I hope the Big Ten never expands to 12.

Please tell me you are joking. In the NFL, teams within the same division play different schedules...but all games count for overall record which determines division champions. Same for wildcards, playoff seeding, etc. It's the same in MLB, NHL, NBA, and almost every sport I know. Balanced schedules 100% of the time would be nice, but sometimes it's just not feasible. The SEC also does a good job with their schedule since one non-divisional game every year remains the same and the top three programs in the eastern division are matched up with the top three programs from the western division with Florida vs LSU, Tennessee vs Bama, and Georgia vs Auburn. So the scenario you described is not possible. Now the strength of a team can vary from season to season, but overall it evens out.

Sometimes you get a break in the schedule and sometimes you don't. There's nothing wrong with a little bit of luck playing a role in scheduling. Tell me one sport where it doesn't. It's certainly not as bad as the Big Ten system where you can miss several teams and there is NO CCG to help account for the unbalanced schedules. So a team could miss Ohio St and Michigan in the same season and go 8-0 to win the conference, while another team goes 7-1 while playing them both. Yet the 7-1 team has no shot. At least in the SEC, the team that wins a division due to getting a good schedule draw still has to prove themselves against the other division champ in a title game - they aren't handed a championship just yet. At least the CCG format has a mathmatical formula that produces one undisputed champion using a pretty fair system. No co-champs allowed. That alone makes it worth it to me.

[Blue Hen]

If there was a legitimate national championship you would most definitely see lots of big name non conference match ups..........simply because a conference title would be the ticket to December Madness. I'd say a real national championship would about eliminate the silly 'rent-a-wins' and increase the big name , n/c match ups 10X what they are now.

[GatorGrad]

If there was a legitimate national championship you would most definitely see lots of big name non conference match ups..........simply because a conference title would be the ticket to December Madness. I'd say a real national championship would about eliminate the silly 'rent-a-wins' and increase the big name , n/c match ups 10X what they are now.

I agree - if a conference championship meant an automatic berth into some sort of a playoff, OOC matchups would improve drastically. Not only would a loss in a tough OOC game not knock you out of the National Championship race, but playing tough OOC games would help get your team battle-tested for the playoffs and/or improve your chances of an at large bid should your team not get an auto bid via a conference championship.

[CJHawkeyes]

"Cowards" might be a little harsh. There are many BCS schools who play very tough schedules, both in and out of conference. As a Gator fan, I won't apologize for playing a cupcake every now and then. Our schedule always ranks near the top. We play programs like Tennessee, LSU, Georgia, and FSU year in and year out. These are not rotated games - this is every year. We also rotate in programs like Auburn, Miami, Alabama, etc. Last year, we played the NCAA-rated #1 SOS and finished as the #1 team and beat the #2 and #3 teams (OSU and LSU) by double digits each. I don't know what else we could have done.

The system we have encourages some of the coward scheduling that you speak of. What are teams supposed to do? Load up on four tough OOC games in addition to their 8 (or 9) game conference schedule? For what? What is the benefit? It will cost them money in home game revenue, money in bowl revenue, and in the current BCS landscape, where wins and losses play such a large role since there is no playoff, it can cost teams MNC opportunities. So really, there is not too much incentive for schools to play tough OOC games. If there was a playoff, it would help.

That's why it's all about the SEC race for me...don't worry about OOC or Bowl Games. They are just for rivalries, money, and fun.

Truthfully, I'm not faulting BCS schools for adopting the scheduling strategy they have. I just think it is disingenuous to oppose ranking all teams by their records rather than just your own under the pretense that BCS schools play more diffcult schedules by virtue of playing more talented competition when they are actually guaranteed to face less parity. They have made it easier for themselves to succeed against the required schedule for national title consideration than it is for nonBCS schools to even acquire the required schedule not to mention succeed against the schedules they do play. Of course, there is nothing wrong with preferring rules that favor more talented teams playing more talented competition. The difference is here is that BCS schools have implemented a system that guarantees they are the most talented teams playing the most talented competition and they act as if they don't know it.

[Don]

You're straying off topic there, Don......which is the wimpy non conference scheduling ideology of the SEC.

If the SEC wanted to really challenge itself it would play many, many more regular season road games vs BCS peers.............but most CF afficionados know why it doesn't do that. All you have to do is look at the record :

SEC vs BCS conference opponents in regular season road games
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

1998) 1-4
1999) 2-2
2000) 1-3
2001) 3-2
2002) 0-9..................that's right, the mighty SEC was 0-9
2003) 6-2
2004) 1-1
2005) 3-3
2006) 0-2


That's 17-28 on road vs people their own size. That's an underwhelming .378 success rate, Don. Compare that with the 1000% success rate playing Sun Belt and 1AA teams at home...........and seriously tell us that the SEC doesn't need these 'rent-a-win' games to artificially inflate the W-L records. It most definitely fools the pollsters and bowlsters.

First your data is off. The SEC was 3-3 vs BCS teams in 2006 on the road. Therefore overall the SEC is 20-29.

WHY is it SO hard for you to play fair?

You want to slam the SEC for playing SUN Belt teams which are D1A teams. In this case I agree, NOT all D1A teams are alike and the Sun Belt teams SUCK (as do many others). What bothers me is that you CAN see why playing teams from the Sun Belt is sucky scheduling BUT you can't do the same for BCS conferences. NOT all BCS teams are alike. SOME SUCK and playing them is also cowardly. IF you are going to slam teams for playing non-D1A and Sun Belt teams why is is SO hard for you to single out BAD BCS teams!!!! Stop simply counting BCS teams alike!!! Look at them in detail BEFORE posting.

Now, as for 2002. The SEC did play 9 "BCS" teams on the road and lost all of them. Now, why don't we look at them in detail. I'm using Mr Howell's (a Michigan fan NOT an SEC fan) computer rankings.

# 9 Alabama (10-3) lost to # 5 Oklahoma (12-2-0)
# 18 Auburn (9-4) lost to # 2 USC (11-2-0)
# 26 UF (8-5) lost to # 14 Florida St. (9-5-0)
# 32 LSU (8-5) lost to # 19 Virginia Tech (10-4-0)
# 48 Miss (7-6) lost to # 20 Texas Tech (9-5-0)
# 67 USC (5-7) lost to # 25 Virginia (9-5-0)
# 67 USC (5-7) lost to # 45 Clemson (7-6-0)
# 90 MSU (3-9) lost to # 53 Oregon (7-6-0)
# 98 Vandy (2-10) lost to # 46 Georgia Tech (7-6-0)

Notice that 6 of the 9 games were against top 25 teams.

Now, what's the problem with losing all 9 games AWAY?
IF the SEC plays on the road they are going to play a GOOD team. The SEC is NOT going to travel to play a sucky BCS teams simply to play on the road.

How about 2006, the year you messed up.

# 1 Florida (13-1-0) beat # 41 Florida St. (7-6-0)
# 25 South Carolina (8-5-0) beat # 29 Clemson (8-5-0)
# 35 Kentucky (8-5-0) lost to # 2 Louisville (12-1-0)
# 68 Vanderbilt (4-8-0) lost to # 6 Michigan (11-2-0)
# 68 Vanderbilt (4-8-0) beat # 116 Duke (0-12-0)
# 72 Mississippi (4-8-0) lost to # 39 Missouri (8-5-0)

Notice that 5 of the 6 opponents went to bowl games last year compared to only 3 of the SEC teams involved went to bowl games.

How is this cowardly scheduling?????

Yes, the PAC 10 has played 11 more BCS opponents on the road than the SEC (60 vs 49) during the BCS era. But the PAC 10 has played 9 more BCS teams than the SEC has that have LOSING records. Why travel to play a team with a losing record? If you are going to play a bad team why not play one at home and get more money?

Yes, the PAC 10 has played more ranked opponents on the road than the SEC has (31 vs 22). But look at the records: 6-16 for the SEC vs 3-28 for the PAC 10 and USC has all 3 wins.

Look at a breakdown.
In games of ranked vs ranked. The SEC has played more ranked BCS teams on the road than the PAC 10 has (11 vs 10) and has a better record (4-7 vs 3-7).

In games of unranked vs ranked opponents the SEC lead clearly 2-9 vs 0-21 for the PAC 10. The PAC 10 is the only BCS conference in which an unranked member has NOT beaten a single ranked opponent.

In games where ranked conference member vs unranked opponents the SEC lead 6-0 vs 5-1.

Finally, as stated earlier, the PAC 10 has played 9 more ranked opponents on the road than the SEC has (31 vs 22). But look at who played those games. Of the 31 games played by the PAC 10 against ranked teams on the road, 16 (more than half were played by PAC 10 with LOSING records! In the SEC only 22 games were played by SEC teams and only 5 were by SEC teams with losing records!

So, it seems that the PAC 10 is creating PR about their strong OOC SOS by sending their lower teams out to lose to ranked BCS teams on the road. The better PAC 10 teams AREN'T the one playing the ranked teams on the road!!!

[AJBuckeye]

that as superior as you think the SEC is they have a losing record percentage wise against the BIG 10 in head to head Bowl game matchups in the BCS era.

You seem to pick and choose stats that work for you as typical SEC chest pounders do. The point in this thread was that the SEC plays a powder puff OOC schedule compared to the other conferences (which they do) and you try to turn this into an attack on the SEC.

[Blue Hen]

If SEC teams losing to so called 'top 25 teams'...whatever the hell that means ( jeez Don, I wish you could be weened from the mythical $hit references ) don't count, does that mean so called 'top 25 SEC teams that win don't count ?
Look, the bottom line is that the SEC has a 50% success rate when it plays other BCS teams and a 100% success rate when it joins D1AA or the Sun Belt Conference. That 50% success rate is based on a rather large 160 game sample (80-80 in BCS era )...a sample which includes strong BCS opponents, weak BCS opponents and average BCS opponents. It all balances out, Don. The only imbalance is the disproportunate # of home games for the SEC.........which is even more telling of the SEC's true strength. Your offerrings of a handful of sample games doesn't prove anything. To fully make the point I think you're tying to make you'd have to reference all 160 games...which you could do.....and work in some kind of 'home field' factor. Good luck if you go for it. I respect your statistical research...although it's 'selective' like we all get sometimes in making points.

You managed to suck me in to a SEC relative strength debate which wasn't the point at all of the topic. It was 'scheduling' , and even a tunneled vision SEC type like yourself would have to admit that the SEC n/c scheduling ideology is very cowardly.........especially for a conference that likes to perceive itself as all dominant and superrior.

I actually give kudos to SEC scheduling ( as a business model ) It produces more FB revenue than any other league...based on the attendance from 90% home games and the inflated W-L records which lead directly to PSEG revenue.


BTW Don, thanks for the correction on the SEC's 'road' record. I get careless sometimes and always welcome corrections.

[GopherGuy]

Please tell me you are joking. In the NFL, teams within the same division play different schedules...but all games count for overall record which determines division champions. Same for wildcards, playoff seeding, etc. It's the same in MLB, NHL, NBA, and almost every sport I know. Balanced schedules 100% of the time would be nice, but sometimes it's just not feasible.

I'm not joking. And you're comparing apples and oranges. First of all, I don't like the fact that non-division games count toward division championships in any of these sports, but it is less of a problem than it would be in college football because of the natural parity of professional sports. I'd say that most seasons, the talent difference between the best and worst NFL teams is less than the talent difference between the best Big Ten team and the 3rd best Big Ten team. Therefore, unbalanced schedules are an order of magnitude more of a problem in college football (and college sports in general).

The SEC also does a good job with their schedule since one non-divisional game every year remains the same and the top three programs in the eastern division are matched up with the top three programs from the western division with Florida vs LSU, Tennessee vs Bama, and Georgia vs Auburn. So the scenario you described is not possible. Now the strength of a team can vary from season to season, but overall it evens out.

You're actually arguing against my point by stating that the particulars I mentioned aren't possible? I just mentioned the top two teams in the West last year and then had one of them play the top three teams in the East and the other play the bottom three. The point of my statement was the general concept of how only playing half the teams in the other division can throw schedule difficulty WAY out of whack, not to lay out a specific scenario. I guess I should have stuck with my original plan of calling them Team A, B, etc.

Sometimes you get a break in the schedule and sometimes you don't. There's nothing wrong with a little bit of luck playing a role in scheduling. Tell me one sport where it doesn't.

Yes, there are always schedule advantages and disadvantages. Even if you play a full round-robin, you could get lucky based on who you have at home. And even if you play everyone twice, once at home and once away, there will be advantages based on who had a bye week before the game, etc. However, playing the top three teams in the other division while your competition plays the bottom three teams isn't a slight advantage, it's a HUGE, GIGANTIC and unfair advantage.

It's certainly not as bad as the Big Ten system where you can miss several teams and there is NO CCG to help account for the unbalanced schedules. So a team could miss Ohio St and Michigan in the same season and go 8-0 to win the conference, while another team goes 7-1 while playing them both. Yet the 7-1 team has no shot. At least in the SEC, the team that wins a division due to getting a good schedule draw still has to prove themselves against the other division champ in a title game - they aren't handed a championship just yet. At least the CCG format has a mathmatical formula that produces one undisputed champion using a pretty fair system. No co-champs allowed. That alone makes it worth it to me.

The Big Ten's system is not perfect. I'm not claiming it is. It's just much better than the CCG model. You have two teams you don't play, which is bad, but not nearly as bad as having three teams you don't play. Plus, with a CCG, you will have unnecessary rematches (why should a team have to beat a team they've already beaten?), an extra game played and you will have unworthy teams playing for the conference title (4-4 Colorado a couple of years ago, for example). Plus, for all the ranting about how fair the system is, it was only a year or two ago that the SEC had to scramble and change its rules midseason to avoid having a league-wide vote to determine a division champion!

And the Big Ten has a formula to produce a single "champion" - we only get one automatic BCS bid each year, so yes, even when we have "co-champions", only one of those teams gets the BCS bid. If the concept of co-champions bothers you that much, then feel free to only consider the team with the automatic bid to be our "true" champion.

[GatorGrad]

"the talent difference between the best and worst NFL teams is less than the talent difference between the best Big Ten team and the 3rd best Big Ten team."
Really? So last year for instance, the difference in talent between 1st place Ohio State and 2nd/3rd place teams Michigan/Wisconsin, who both finished 7-1, is greater than the difference in talent between top NFL teams like the Colts or Chargers vs bottom NFL teams like Cleveland or Oakland? I disagree.

playing the top three teams in the other division while your competition plays the bottom three teams isn't a slight advantage, it's a HUGE, GIGANTIC and unfair advantage.
Do you realize how many times a division winner has won the division due to this scenario? The SEC does a good job matching up the historically better teams with their one non divisional game and the other two games that rotate all balanced out ever few years. Again, this is no different than pro sports where teams rarely play identical schedules, yet overall record counts for division championships, wildcard berths, and playoff seeding (non divisional and non conference games are all included included.) Several college sports have the same issue with unbalanced schedules. In the Big Ten, an unbalanced schedule can help a team directly win the Big Ten Championship. In a CCG format, at least an unbalanced schedule can only help a team directly win a division - they still have to win the CCG against the other division champ.

The Big Ten's system is not perfect. I'm not claiming it is. It's just much better than the CCG model. You have two teams you don't play, which is bad, but not nearly as bad as having three teams you don't play.
To win a conference with a CCG, you play 9 conference games, more than the Big Ten. The CCG system guarantees that you cannot win the conference championship without winning your own division and beating the #1 team from the other division. So you can't sneak by 100% with a lucky schedule. It might help you get into a CCG, but it doesn't hand you the conference championship - you still have to prove yourself by beating the other division champ. However, in the Big Ten, you can have a team go 8-0 without playing Michigan or Ohio State and call themselves "Big Ten Champions" along with another 8-0 team that had to play and beat both Michigan and Ohio State. And last year Wisconsin, had they not lost to Michigan, would have been Big Ten Champs at 8-0 last year along with Ohio State...and the two teams didn't even get a chance to play! Come on - you must admit that is silly.

it was only a year or two ago that the SEC had to scramble and change its rules midseason to avoid having a league-wide vote to determine a division champion!
This has happened one single time with a 3-way tie between Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida in 2003. Every single tie-breaker was used and they were still tied, something that has only happened once. So they changed the final tie-breaker. It's not like that was a normal situation.

And the Big Ten has a formula to produce a single "champion"
No it does not. You can have co-champions as you did in 2005 with Penn State and Ohio State who both finished 7-1. I'm not talking about the BCS Bid. If the Big Ten used their BCS Bid tie-breaker to claim one champ, it would be better, but they do not. They can have 2 or 3 "champs" in one single year with all of them getting championship rings, hanging a banner, etc.

[GatorGrad]

By the way, I have no problem with round robin scheduling (see Big East or PAC 10.) That is certainly a fair way to determine a champion. The only flaw I see in that is if there is no tie-breaker in place to produce one undisputed champ. It's bad enough that we can have co-champs at the national championship level. But at least you're talking about 100+ teams, all playing different schedules. There's no reason to have co-champs with conferences of just 8-12 teams all playing identical or similar schedules.

As long as tiebreakers existed to crown one conference champ, round robin scheduling is great. Unfortunately, the PAC 10 and Big East do not do this. The CCG format does. And it is exciting during the season as more teams stay in the race since they only need to finish in 1st place out of 6 teams to reach the title game. The title game itself is very exciting as well and brings in a lot of money for the SEC.

The Big Ten does none of the above which is a shame IMO. They don't play a balanced schedule like the Big East or PAC 10, and they can't produce one champ like the ACC, SEC, or BIG 12. If you're not going to get to 12 and have a CCG, why invite Penn St? At least stay at 10 and go with the PAC 10 round robin scheduling format! And they don't have the excitement or revenue that a CCG can bring. I think they will in the future however. If ND never joins, then Syracuse, Mizzou, or Pit would be solid choices.

[Blue Hen]

Actually AJ, the B12 has caught up to the SEC in powderpuff scheduling in recent years, maybe surpassed it. Heck, they've all caught on to the SEC's system of custom scheduling gawdy W-L records and high rankings The SEC gets scrutinized the most, in this regard, because of all the silly dominance claims.

[GatorGrad]

AJ - What is Ohio State's record against SEC teams?

:)

[Blue Hen]

OSU's bowl record vs SEC is a big time OUCH

[Don]

that as superior as you think the SEC is they have a losing record percentage wise against the BIG 10 in head to head Bowl game matchups in the BCS era.

You seem to pick and choose stats that work for you as typical SEC chest pounders do. The point in this thread was that the SEC plays a powder puff OOC schedule compared to the other conferences (which they do) and you try to turn this into an attack on the SEC.

First, how is CLAIMING that "the SEC plays a powder puff OOC schedule" NOT attacking the SEC? Why don't you get off your powder puff hind end and provide FACTS to back up your claim. As in detailed opponents lists? I provided a breakdown on the SEC scheduling so how about YOU providing the other breakdowns to show how they are better than the SEC's?

You too are selective in your reporting. You give factoids but not facts.

In the "BCS era" the SEC has played more BCS opponents in bowl games than any other conference and has the BEST RECORD IN THOSE BOWLS!!!

Here are the data:
SEC (36-30-0)--0.54545
Big East (19-16-0)--0.54286
ACC (24-23-0)--0.51064
Big Ten (29-28-0)--0.50877
Pac-10 (19-19-0)--0.50000
Big 12 (26-31-0)--0.45614
Independent (0-6-0)--0.00000

Why are we limiting the comparisons to the "BCS" era? What in the name of blazes is so special about that era when discussing scheduling?

Could it be possibly be selective reporting?
Facts to consider. In Bowl games involving the Big Ten vs BCS conferences here are the records using current conference configurations
2006 (2-5)
(2005-2006) (5-9)
(2004-2006) (8-12)
(2003-2006) (11-16)
(2002-2006) (16-18)
(2001-2006) (17-22)
(2000-2006) (19-26)
(1999-2006) (24-28)
(1998-2006) (29-28) THE BCS ERA!!!! YEAH Only winning span!
(1997-2006) (31-33)
(1996-2006) (34-36)
(1995-2006) (36-40)
(1994-2006) (38-41)
(1993-2006) (41-43)
(1992-2006) (42-45)
(1991-2006) (44-48)
(1990-2006) (46-52)
(1989-2006) (47-54)
(1988-2006) (49-57)
(1987-2006) (51-59)

That's 20 years and you pick the ONLY span in which the Big Ten has a winning record vs BCS teams! No wonder you Big Ten guys are married to the "BCS era"!!! That's impressive considering we are discussing the vaunted Big Ten Conference. Note the lowly SEC has a WINNING record over EVERY span in the past 20 years in bowl games against BCS conferences.

But back to head to head.
In the span 1998-2006, yes, the Big Ten has beaten the SEC more times than the SEC has beaten the Big Ten (13-11) but if you include just one more year(1997-2006), your claim is not true (13-13). Go back 2 years (1996-2006) and now the SEC has beaten the Big Ten more times than the Big Ten has beaten the SEC (15-13).

Any other points you want to bring up AJ?

PS, AJ. What again is OSU's bowl record vs the SEC?
Note to AJ, People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[Blue Hen]

Bowls, bowls, bowls. The SEC doesn't get to chose its opponents in Post Season Exhibition Games ( bowls ). If they did get to choose, I'm sure that 1-AA and Sun Belt teams would still be the first choice.....:-)

[Don]

The system we have encourages some of the coward scheduling that you speak of. What are teams supposed to do? Load up on four tough OOC games in addition to their 8 (or 9) game conference schedule? For what? What is the benefit? It will cost them money in home game revenue, money in bowl revenue, and in the current BCS landscape, where wins and losses play such a large role since there is no playoff, it can cost teams MNC opportunities. So really, there is not too much incentive for schools to play tough OOC games. If there was a playoff, it would help.

It might help provided that the playoff involves seatings and not autobids. Autobids for conference winners means to hell with OOC games. Why schedule tough ones when you can play ALL Sun Belt teams and still win your conference to get in? Any playoff must have a minimum performance other than simply winning a conference. There must be an RPI/SOS component.

How about to be a playoff team, it must win at least 10 games, must lose no more than 3 games, and have an SOS rated in the top 50. This would force teams to schedule OOC teams to make sure they have the SOS needed. Then have a group of ex-coaches to pick the top 8 for the playoff.

[Blue Hen]

Oh yeah, I know that, NCT.....jut having a little fun there. That is good news that UGA has some road games scheduled that it can't walk to.

[GopherGuy]

"the talent difference between the best and worst NFL teams is less than the talent difference between the best Big Ten team and the 3rd best Big Ten team."
Really? So last year for instance, the difference in talent between 1st place Ohio State and 2nd/3rd place teams Michigan/Wisconsin, who both finished 7-1, is greater than the difference in talent between top NFL teams like the Colts or Chargers vs bottom NFL teams like Cleveland or Oakland? I disagree.

I said "third best", not "third place". In my mind, Michigan was clearly the second best team, so we're talking Ohio State vs. Wisconsin. And yes, I think the talent difference between Ohio State and Wisconsin was significantly more than the talent difference between the Colts and Cleveland. I don't think it's even close. Why don't you list for me all of the positions that you would consider Wisconsin to have had a more talented player at than Ohio State? One of the offensive tackles and maybe one or two others, but that's about it. Many of OSU's backups were more talented than Wisconsin's starters.


playing the top three teams in the other division while your competition plays the bottom three teams isn't a slight advantage, it's a HUGE, GIGANTIC and unfair advantage.
Do you realize how many times a division winner has won the division due to this scenario? The SEC does a good job matching up the historically better teams with their one non divisional game and the other two games that rotate all balanced out ever few years. Again, this is no different than pro sports where teams rarely play identical schedules, yet overall record counts for division championships, wildcard berths, and playoff seeding (non divisional and non conference games are all included included.) Several college sports have the same issue with unbalanced schedules. In the Big Ten, an unbalanced schedule can help a team directly win the Big Ten Championship. In a CCG format, at least an unbalanced schedule can only help a team directly win a division - they still have to win the CCG against the other division champ.

Please stop comparing college sports to professional sports for this discussion. Apples and oranges. In the pros, if you're terrible, you get to pick higher in the draft and get better players. Plus, there's a salary cap to keep teams from hoarding too much talent. In college, if you're terrible, you get the leftovers that nobody else wanted. In the pros, there has been exactly one time in the Super Bowl era that a team has gone undefeated. Most college seasons see at least one undefeated team.

Yes, an unbalanced schedule can help a team win the Big Ten. It's less likely to happen than having an unbalanced schedule help an SEC team win their division. OK, maybe you can argue that playing a CCG evens that advantage out, but the unbalanced schedule is still a big factor.


The Big Ten's system is not perfect. I'm not claiming it is. It's just much better than the CCG model. You have two teams you don't play, which is bad, but not nearly as bad as having three teams you don't play.
To win a conference with a CCG, you play 9 conference games, more than the Big Ten. The CCG system guarantees that you cannot win the conference championship without winning your own division and beating the #1 team from the other division. So you can't sneak by 100% with a lucky schedule. It might help you get into a CCG, but it doesn't hand you the conference championship - you still have to prove yourself by beating the other division champ. However, in the Big Ten, you can have a team go 8-0 without playing Michigan or Ohio State and call themselves "Big Ten Champions" along with another 8-0 team that had to play and beat both Michigan and Ohio State. And last year Wisconsin, had they not lost to Michigan, would have been Big Ten Champs at 8-0 last year along with Ohio State...and the two teams didn't even get a chance to play! Come on - you must admit that is silly.

No, you can't 100% sneak by with a lucky schedule - you still have to win the games! That's true in the SEC and in the Big Ten. Sure, Iowa doesn't play Michigan or Ohio State this year, but to win the Big Ten they'll need to beat the other 8 teams in the conference (or at least 7 of the 8).

You're right - even if scheduling breaks help you win your division, you still have to play the CCG before you get the title. However, if bad scheduling breaks cost you the division crown, you never get that chance to play for the title.

And yes, if Wisconsin had beaten Michigan, they would have been co-champions with Ohio State. OSU would have gotten the automatic BCS bid, so if you insist on only recognizing one team, then they would still have been your "real" Big Ten Champions.

it was only a year or two ago that the SEC had to scramble and change its rules midseason to avoid having a league-wide vote to determine a division champion!
This has happened one single time with a 3-way tie between Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida in 2003. Every single tie-breaker was used and they were still tied, something that has only happened once. So they changed the final tie-breaker. It's not like that was a normal situation.

My point was simply that the SEC's approach is hardly bullet-proof and the need for that emergency vote demonstrates that fact.

And the Big Ten has a formula to produce a single "champion"
No it does not. You can have co-champions as you did in 2005 with Penn State and Ohio State who both finished 7-1. I'm not talking about the BCS Bid. If the Big Ten used their BCS Bid tie-breaker to claim one champ, it would be better, but they do not. They can have 2 or 3 "champs" in one single year with all of them getting championship rings, hanging a banner, etc.

So, is it the "there can only be one" mentality that drives your opinion on this matter? I hate that mindset in all sports. It causes things like having shootouts to avoid having tie games. It causes having overtimes with fundamentally different rules than the game itself. It causes imaginary things like BCS rankings to determine conference titles.

My philosophy is this - except in a playoff situation, things should be decided according to the rules that you used to get to the end position where a tie resulted. That means that if a football game ends up tied, one of two things should happen. The game should end and be declared a tie, or the teams should keep playing football according to the game rules. This means no starting with the ball on the 25 yard line and taking turns while ignoring the clock. It also means no sudden death. A full additional quarter should be played and whoever is ahead at the end of it wins.

Similarly, a conference title should be given to the team with the best conference record. If more than one team has that same record, they should all be considered conference champions for the year. Of course, because one team gets an automatic BCS berth, tie-breaking procedures need to be used to isolate which team gets that bid. But all of them should be considered champions.

Obviously we'll never agree on this. I just don't understand why fans of other conferences are so obsessed with us choosing our own method of crowning a champion. I don't like the CCG format and would hate it if the Big Ten ever started to use it, but I don't have any problem with your conference choosing to use it. So why can't you leave us alone and let us decide our conference title the way we want to. How does it really affect Florida if the Big Ten has co-champions this year???

[GatorGrad]

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree. I'm not obsessed w/ the Big Ten's process in determining a champ, I just think it's silly. The bottom line is that every other BCS Conference either produces a single undisputed champion, or has a balanced schedule. The Big Ten does neither. I just think it's a shame.

Having 11 teams with no round robin and no CCG just makes for a funky race. I'm sorry, but the fact that two teams can both finish 8-0 and never get to play each other is beyond lame. The fact that Iowa could win the Big Ten without having to play either Michigan or Ohio State this year is nonsense.

There's no reason for a conference of 12 or less teams to not be able to produce one champ or at least stage a round robin. The Big Ten does neither. However, I am confident that they will soon when they add a 12th team and go the CCG format.

[GopherGuy]

Well, right now, the Pac Ten is also in the same boat. They'll be playing a round-robin soon, but they haven't done that traditionally.

I'm not sure what the answer is when you have 11 teams. I'd like a round-robin, but that would require ten conference games. Since every team in the conference wants at least 7 home games and they would already have 5 road games scheduled in conference play, that means that nobody in the conference could ever play another road non-conference game. That won't happen. The only way we'd ever go to a round-robin is if one or more schools left the conference or the schedule was expanded to 13 or 14 games. Maybe we could petition the NCAA for one extra game since we don't have a CCG... OK, maybe not - there's no way the NCAA would agree to that. Also, we can't go to 9 games to make it only one team that we don't play - with an odd number of teams, it's not possible to have everyone play 9 conference games.

[GatorGrad]

Well, right now, the Pac Ten is also in the same boat. They'll be playing a round-robin soon, but they haven't done that traditionally.

Actually, the PAC 10 is already playing a round robin 9-game conference schedule. They did so last year. It's already in place. I actually have no problem with their setup - I think it's great and a very fair way to determine a conference champion.

The Big Ten should have stayed at 10 members (as their name indicates) and done the same. With 11 teams now, the Big Ten is really in a weird spot and will likely add a 12th team eventually IMO.

[GopherGuy]

You're right - they have started it already. For some reason I thought that they didn't start it until 2008 or 2009.

In theory, I agree that we should have stayed at 10 teams. However, in practice, I think Penn State has been a great addition. At this point, I'm not sure what we could do. One thing I'd like to see is paying attention to practical matters - yes, team strength varies from year-to-year, but I think anyone can see that there should never be a season that someone misses both Michigan and Ohio State.

[GatorGrad]

Well the options other than keeping the current 11-team setup are:

1) Play a 10-game conference round robin schedule.

2) Kick a team out and go back to 10 teams with a 9-game conference round robin schedule like the PAC 10 has.

3) Add a 12th team and go with the CCG format.

#1 and #2 seem to both be very unlikely. I would like to see option #3 and I think we will someday soon.

[CJHawkeyes]

Based on my ideal format for college football, CCGs would be eliminated. However, I'm warming to the idea of the Big Ten adding a 12th member and having a CCG. My biggest problem with unbalanced interdivision schedules is protected games. I think it would be more fair to assign those games based on most recent finish. For example, everyone plays their division rivals plus the team with the same finish in the opposite division. For the remaining two interdivision games, teams play one of the following pairs (1-6)(2-5)(3-4). Under this scenario, everyone plays opponents whose previous finish adds up to 28. Guaranteeing rotating home games may be a problem though.

[GatorGrad]

The protected non-divisional games keep rivalries like Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, Miami-FSU, etc going. Although I wouldn't have a problem with something like what CJ proposes.

But how exciting would it be if you had divisional games like Michigan vs OSU and Penn State vs Iowa or Notre Dame in the final weekend with the winners advancing to a Big Ten Championship Game in Indianapolis or Chicago?

[CJHawkeyes]

The protected non-divisional games keep rivalries like Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, Miami-FSU, etc going. Although I wouldn't have a problem with something like what CJ proposes.

But how exciting would it be if you had divisional games like Michigan vs OSU and Penn State vs Iowa or Notre Dame in the final weekend with the winners advancing to a Big Ten Championship Game in Indianapolis or Chicago?

I understand why they have protected rivalries, but I prefer the fairest possible competition. Under my format, there is a 60% chance those games are still played perhaps even moreso since a conference can choose to match pairs that would protect rivalries. For example, if Georgia is 3rd in the East and Auburn is 2nd in the west, 3-4 East can be paired with 2-5 West. That said, I'm sure it would be very exciting if the Big Ten had a CCG.

[GatorGrad]

The CCG format also makes it more exciting for the lesser programs. Schools like Indiana now only have to beat out five other teams to win a six team division to have a shot at playing for the title. They can have one great season and make a run for a Big Ten Championship more often than they can in the current system. It keeps more teams, players, and fans interested as they are not eliminated from the race as quickly.