Yes or No

[CJHawkeyes]

Would you like to see I-A members play an equal number of regular season games, including an equal number of home and away games, versus I-A competition only?

[TigerStripe]

Most definitely.

Nothing against the former I-AA or any other division, but the big teams really don't gain that much, if any, from playing them.

[Hail to the Victors Valiant]

But Michigan hosting 1-AA App State should count for something. It's not as if there playing Western Carolina.

[CJHawkeyes]

NCT: I'd be in favor of eliminating neutral site games. However, eliminating I-AA games is more important to me than ensuring balanced home and away schedules.

HTTVV: FWIW, I'm not picking on Michigan. They are one of the last I-A schools to play a I-AA opponent and they picked a good one.

[Hail to the Victors Valiant]

I understand. I am against imbalanced schedules as well. The App State game is an anomoly as they may be a better opponent for Michigan than Eastern Michigan will be in October.

[footballfiji]

I said no just because of the equal number of home and away games. Most schools need more home games than away games in order to make money and not just for them for all their sports. 4 away games are fine, maybe 5 but 6 is pushing it for any team.

[Don]

But Michigan hosting 1-AA App State should count for something. It's not as if there playing Western Carolina.

Why? In 1986 Georgia Southern won the D1AA title but lost to UF in the first game 38-14. UF was 6-5 that year (counting the win over GSU. Any decent D1A team can pretty much dictate the score. It might be interesting if the D1A uses 2nd and 3rd stringers a lot. If UM play starters till halftime UM probably will win say 49-14.

[Don]

NCT: I'd be in favor of eliminating neutral site games. However, eliminating I-AA games is more important to me than ensuring balanced home and away schedules.

Why???
I consider D1AA to be similar to bottom of the barrel D1A teams or and maybe a little better. Any D1A top-25 team should be able to dictate the score against D1A teams lower than probably #70 (and ANY D1AA schools). The only shot D1AA has is if their top teams play the lower ranked D1A teams or if they're lucky maybe upset a middle ranked D1A. I just don't see the problem with scheduling them.

The problem is people DON'T want to look at SOS. People just want to say that IF a team plays a D1AA school then that team is a coward. BULL.

Why give Michigan grief for playing Appalachian St.(D1AA) and NOT for playing Eastern Michigan? I suspect UM will find a tougher game vs ASU than EMU.

[CJHawkeyes]

Why???
I consider D1AA to be similar to bottom of the barrel D1A teams or and maybe a little better. Any D1A top-25 team should be able to dictate the score against D1A teams lower than probably #70 (and ANY D1AA schools). The only shot D1AA has is if their top teams play the lower ranked D1A teams or if they're lucky maybe upset a middle ranked D1A. I just don't see the problem with scheduling them.

The problem is people DON'T want to look at SOS. People just want to say that IF a team plays a D1AA school then that team is a coward. BULL.

Why give Michigan grief for playing Appalachian St.(D1AA) and NOT for playing Eastern Michigan? I suspect UM will find a tougher game vs ASU than EMU.

I'm not giving Michigan grief for playing Appalachian State. I object to anyone playing such games. My Hawkeyes played Montana last year. Furthermore, the fact that some I-A teams may be weaker than some I-AA teams is beside the point. It becomes much more difficult to schedule a cupcake game if limited to a pool of 118 possible opponents as opposed to adding I-AA teams to the mix. Force the 70 I-A teams that played I-AA competition to schedule each other and see how many would actually have easier games. Better yet, adopt objective rules that encourage stronger scheduling. Instead of playing Appalachian State or Eastern Michigan, the Wolverines and others might schedule teams at the top of other conferences. Also, with only two of 119 teams qualifying for the playoffs, I think it simply makes more sense to have the 70 I-A vs I-AA games replaced with 35 I-A vs I-A games in order to produce a desirable result.

[String911]

I voted no. I don't think we need 6 home games and 6 road games. I would, however, be happy to cap home games at 7 in a 12 game season. I'm sick of seeing schools play 8 home games.

[Blue Hen]

Yes, of course. This imbalanced and 'custom' scheduling is a major ingredient for this , mostly, 'exhibition' sport.

[buckeyejim]

Could you imagine if the Dallas Cowboys played 10 home games and 6 road games and the Atlanta Falcons played 7 home games and 9 road games? How fair would that be to Atlanta? I've always thought that if the NCAA went to 12 games it should be 6 home and 6 road. However we know that it will never happen because, the schools with huge stadiums and that draw large crowds will get the home games because many schools make more money playing as the "sacraficial lamb". In other words, an Arkansas State makes more money playing at Tennessee than they do playing home games due to the guaraneed money by playing in Neyland Stadium in front of 105,000.

[Don]

But, PART of the desirable result is to have MORE home games. If the 70 D1A teams played each other then only 35 would have home games.

I have NO objections to a team scheduling "patsies" (D1A or D1AA) provided that the rest of their schedule includes a few good teams including at least one OCC in the top 50. If your conference is a weak conference then it is even more important to schedule BETTER OCC teams.

Again, UM always schedules enough "good" opponents that one can get a decent idea of how good UM is. That ISN'T true of many teams.

[CJHawkeyes]

But, PART of the desirable result is to have MORE home games. If the 70 D1A teams played each other then only 35 would have home games.

I have NO objections to a team scheduling "patsies" (D1A or D1AA) provided that the rest of their schedule includes a few good teams including at least one OCC in the top 50. If your conference is a weak conference then it is even more important to schedule BETTER OCC teams.

Again, UM always schedules enough "good" opponents that one can get a decent idea of how good UM is. That ISN'T true of many teams.

I understand why these games exist, but none of us follow college football based on how much money our favorite schools will make. How would it not be better to require all 119 I-A teams to play balanced schedules versus I-A
competition only? From a fan's POV, why defend a system that encourages eight home games, I-AA games, and does not encourage OOC games versus Top 25 competition? I think I-A teams were actually 72-6 vs I-AA last year. In attempting to determine a I-A champion and the only two playoff teams, it makes much more sense to have 39 I-A vs I-A games with one I-A winner and one I-A loser as opposed to 78 games that serve no competitive purpose.

[Hail to the Victors Valiant]

Michigan has eight home games because they played at Oregon already, alternate with ND, and won't travel to Eastern Michigan or Appie State. It's not as if Michigan is dodging anything or any team. Your point is more about balanced schedulig, I know, but Michigan's schedule is not a good example to support your position.

[buckeyejim]

With the permanent 12 game schedule, you'll see Ohio State, Tennessee, Michigan, Penn State, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Wisconsin, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and other "big-time" programs play at least 7 home games every season and many of those listed above will play 8 home games. Why? Because they can. The rich will become richer.

[CJHawkeyes]

Michigan has eight home games because they played at Oregon already, alternate with ND, and won't travel to Eastern Michigan or Appie State. It's not as if Michigan is dodging anything or any team. Your point is more about balanced schedulig, I know, but Michigan's schedule is not a good example to support your position.

I'm not making this about Michigan nor do I think they are dodging anyone. Personally, I object to I-AA games moreso than uneven home and away schedules. Again, while I understand why I-A schools like I-AA games, I don't understand why fans would defend these games. They serve no competitive purpose. These games are no threat to good I-A teams and these games do nothing to help determine I-A's champion.

[ZOOMBAG]

I said no just because of the equal number of home and away games. Most schools need more home games than away games in order to make money and not just for them for all their sports. 4 away games are fine, maybe 5 but 6 is pushing it for any team.

So La. Monroe needs only 4 away and 8 home, too, right?

[ZOOMBAG]

I voted no. I don't think we need 6 home games and 6 road games. I would, however, be happy to cap home games at 7 in a 12 game season. I'm sick of seeing schools play 8 home games.

No, it has to be a HARD 6 and 6 across ALL of the 119 Div IA programs. No exceptions for any reason.

[HellYeahHokie]

I love it when Zoombag goes all socialist talking about NCAA football.

By the way, why does Nebraska basketball suck so badly? It's a huge athletic program with success in many other sports. Why can't they put together a decent basketball team?

[HellYeahHokie]

I can assure you that if Dallas Stadium had 100,000 seats, and Atlanta stadium only had 15,000 seats, the NFL would find away to play more games in Dallas than Atlanta.

However, the NFL has the power to demand equity between franchises. They won't allow a city to have a team without equitable facilities.

The NCAA has no real ability to make that happen at 117 colleges, although I guess they are putting some sort of standard in terms of attendance in order to remain Div 1. But we're talking about the difference of millions of dollers in revenue by playing in a big stadium versus a small stadium. You just can't pretend these inequities in revenue doen't matter.

[HellYeahHokie]

Glad you didn't get lost in cyberspace and have your computer issues cleaned up.

Want a tutorial on how to get that BlueHen image next to your name, or would you rather leave it the way it is.

[String911]

No, it has to be a HARD 6 and 6 across ALL of the 119 Div IA programs. No exceptions for any reason.

No, no...I think I'll stick with my opinion. Thanks for thinking for me though.

[H.I.]

none of this would make much of a difference if college football had a playoff. if we don't have that i wish conferences would pair up each year and have sort of a big ten/acc challenge matching where you finished with the other conferences same place finisher. so next year hypothetical games would include ohio st vs. wake forest, florida vs. southern cal, oklahoma vs. louisville, michigan vs. west virginia, lsu vs. cal, etc.

[CJHawkeyes]

I'm beginning to wonder if some of you actually work for the various power conferences. The fact that BCS schools are not likely to agree to balanced schedules versus I-A competition only including equal home and away schedules is beside the point. Therefore, it is not necessary to continually point this out. This about what you would like to see as a fan. And as such, wouldn't the national championship race be a much better competition if all I-A teams had to navigate 12 I-A opponents including six road games in order to reach the title game? As it stands, teams play unequal overall schedules, intradivisional schedules, and home and away schedules. Have everyone compete under equitable circumstances and then try to maximum their profit margins within this framework. If a team with a 80K stadium objects to playing at a school with a 20K stadium, then don't schedule them.

[HellYeahHokie]

As a fan, the more home games the better. That's what I care about. The difference between six home games and eight home games is two more Saturdays screaming my lungs out for 3 hours for my favorite team in my favorite sport in my favorite stadium. It's two more days a year spent with my good friends tailgating, friends that I only see during football weekends.

This is why I don't get too caught up in the whole playoff debate. I don't really care that much, because for me, college football isn't about who is the National Champion. It's about spending a Saturday eating, drinking, and cheering for a bunch of kids trying their best to win a football game. Playoffs? BCS? Whatever. I'll let other people worry about that. It's gameday that matters.

[CJHawkeyes]

As a fan, the more home games the better. That's what I care about. The difference between six home games and eight home games is two more Saturdays screaming my lungs out for 3 hours for my favorite team in my favorite sport in my favorite stadium. It's two more days a year spent with my good friends tailgating, friends that I only see during football weekends.

This is why I don't get too caught up in the whole playoff debate. I don't really care that much, because for me, college football isn't about who is the National Champion. It's about spending a Saturday eating, drinking, and cheering for a bunch of kids trying their best to win a football game. Playoffs? BCS? Whatever. I'll let other people worry about that. It's gameday that matters.


While I can certainly understand objection to balanced schedules based on the desire to tailgate more often, I don't imagine I'll ever be able to relate to your level of interest in the national title race. While I certainly get excited about games for their own sake, the value of games in the grand scheme of things is what matters most to me.

[Don]

You are missing HOW important attendance is.

Here is a url to look at http://www.ncaa.org/stats/football/attendance/2006/2006_football_attendance.pdf

The SEC in 87 games had a greater TOTAL attendance than ALL 116 teams in D1AA in 642 games combined!

The SEC in 87 games outdrew in TOTAL attendance all 372 teams in DII and DIII in 1,917 games combined!

Michigan alone outdrew in TOTAL attendance all 28 conference in DIII, all 15 conference in DII and 15 out of 16 conference in D1AA and even outdrew the SunBelt Conference in D1A!! UM had a greater attendance in ONE game than 22 D1A teams had for the entire year!

Montana had the highest D1AA attendance at 22,600. That is higher than 36 D1A teams. If D1A teams "don't have to" play D1AA teams home-and-home then why should they have to play any of these 36 D1A teams home-and-home? Those 36 teams include only ONE BCS team (Duke #92 out of 119 teams).

[H.I.]

this really doesn't have anything to do with fairness, etc. what people don't want to say is that if you take away 2 home games from the big boys, their fans won't be able to get DRUNK, have an excuse to act like a jack@ss, show off all their tailgating goods, feel important, etc. 2 extra times a year. this whole thing is based on ego all the way down the line. the ego of programs like michigan, ohio state, okla., uf, etc. that feel its their right to have extra games. the ego of those supporters that feel its their right to get drunk and act like tailgating for the big game isn't part of "real life" a couple of extra times a year.

[CJHawkeyes]

You are missing HOW important attendance is.

Here is a url to look at http://www.ncaa.org/stats/football/attendance/2006/2006_football_attendance.pdf

The SEC in 87 games had a greater TOTAL attendance than ALL 116 teams in D1AA in 642 games combined!

The SEC in 87 games outdrew in TOTAL attendance all 372 teams in DII and DIII in 1,917 games combined!

Michigan alone outdrew in TOTAL attendance all 28 conference in DIII, all 15 conference in DII and 15 out of 16 conference in D1AA and even outdrew the SunBelt Conference in D1A!! UM had a greater attendance in ONE game than 22 D1A teams had for the entire year!

Montana had the highest D1AA attendance at 22,600. That is higher than 36 D1A teams. If D1A teams "don't have to" play D1AA teams home-and-home then why should they have to play any of these 36 D1A teams home-and-home? Those 36 teams include only ONE BCS team (Duke #92 out of 119 teams).

I'm not missing out of the importance of attendance at all. I repeated several times that MONEY is the reason the big leagues will not agree to balanced schedules versus I-A competition only. This about having the fairest competition possible and I'm amazed how many fans repeat the talking points of those in power as if they have a stake in this. Requiring teams to play balanced schedules versus I-A competition doesn't force Michigan or Tennessee to play a road game at a small stadium. If attendance is that important, schools with large stadiums can agree to play each other and split the gate. How many people praise the "meaningfulness" of college football's regular season then defend unbalanced schedules and I-AA games that serve no competitive purpose only to point out that the top ten teams didn't really play anyone? Most national champions usually only have to beat about two top 16 opponents during their title season.

[Don]

I'm not missing out of the importance of attendance at all. I repeated several times that MONEY is the reason the big leagues will not agree to balanced schedules versus I-A competition only. This about having the fairest competition possible and I'm amazed how many fans repeat the talking points of those in power as if they have a stake in this. Requiring teams to play balanced schedules versus I-A competition doesn't force Michigan or Tennessee to play a road game at a small stadium. If attendance is that important, schools with large stadiums can agree to play each other and split the gate

They do!. AND when they play small schools they DON'T !!!



How many people praise the "meaningfulness" of college football's regular season then defend unbalanced schedules and I-AA games that serve no competitive purpose only to point out that the top ten teams didn't really play anyone? Most national champions usually only have to beat about two top 16 opponents during their title season.

I'm not sure where the top "16" comes from but you are wrong. The last 15 AP #1 teams have played a total of 52 top "16" teams or 3.5 per year. The majority of the teams played 4 or more top "16" teams. The 2000 Oklahoma team played 5 top "16" teams. Only three teams have ended up #1 and played only 2 top "16" teams (2005 Texas, 2003 USC and 1994 Nebraska). You might recall that there was some controversy in 1994 and 2003 about who was #1.

If you expand it to the top 25 then these 15 teams played 67 top 25 teams or 5.5 per year. The 2006 Florida, 2001 Miami, 1996 Florida and 1993 FSU teams all played 6 top 25 teams. Here only three teams ended up #1 and played fewer than 4 top 25 teams (2003 USC played only 2, 1997 Michigan played only 3 and 1994 Nebraska played only 3). Again, there was controversy in these years.

So, the "big boys" do play each other and SHOULD in order to have a claim on the MNC!

[ZOOMBAG]

No, no...I think I'll stick with my opinion. Thanks for thinking for me though.

If the point of balanced scheduling is truely BALANCED scheduling across the competative division (Div IA) then like the NFL EVERYONE must play EXACTLY the same number of home and away games.

[Don]

But NFL teams DON'T play the same number of home and away games.

The Bears played 10 at home and 8 away. Why? Because they performed better than others and were rewarded by getting to host more games. The same as college football.

Teams like Michigan, USC, etc. have performed better and therefore host more games!

[CJHawkeyes]

But NFL teams DON'T play the same number of home and away games.

The Bears played 10 at home and 8 away. Why? Because they performed better than others and were rewarded by getting to host more games. The same as college football.

Teams like Michigan, USC, etc. have performed better and therefore host more games!

Please tell me you are kidding? The Bears earned homefield advantage in the playoffs based on their regular season performance. Michigan and USC additional home games because they can, not becasue they have earned them.

[Don]

From a fan's POV, why defend a system that encourages eight home games, I-AA games, and does not encourage OOC games versus Top 25 competition? I think I-A teams were actually 72-6 vs I-AA last year. In attempting to determine a I-A champion and the only two playoff teams, it makes much more sense to have 39 I-A vs I-A games with one I-A winner and one I-A loser as opposed to 78 games that serve no competitive purpose.

But, your proposal DOESN'T fix the scheduling problem! Simply requiring everyone to play 6 home and 6 away WON'T get teams to schedule better teams. Boise State scheduled Sacramento State last year. Boise State had an SOS ranked 85th (using the old BCS formula or 1/3 and 2/3). Boise State had 6 home and 6 away games but chose Sacramento State as one of its teams.

I believe that including a STRONG SOS component into selection process would (over time) push teams to schedule better opponents. The problem with this is that it probably would crush the smaller conferences completely. Imagine if NO ONE from the BCS conferences scheduled the Sun Belt or MAC teams? To raise their SOS teams would opt for a BCS team over a team that would lower its SOS.

Boise State has NEVER beaten a top 10 team. They are 0-5 since they turned D1A in 1996. They have lost 3 away, 1 at home and 1 at a neutral site. Over that span only 18 teams have played FEWER top 10 teams AWAY than Boise State has. (The average is 5.8 top 10 opponents played AWAY.)

The major conference have to play top 10 teams AWAY every year. OK, most are in conference but who cares. IF you want scheduling parity then FORCE the Boise States to play top 10 teams AWAY since there are none IN-Conference!!!

[CJHawkeyes]

But, your proposal DOESN'T fix the scheduling problem! Simply requiring everyone to play 6 home and 6 away WON'T get teams to schedule better teams. Boise State scheduled Sacramento State last year. Boise State had an SOS ranked 85th (using the old BCS formula or 1/3 and 2/3). Boise State had 6 home and 6 away games but chose Sacramento State as one of its teams.

I believe that including a STRONG SOS component into selection process would (over time) push teams to schedule better opponents. The problem with this is that it probably would crush the smaller conferences completely. Imagine if NO ONE from the BCS conferences scheduled the Sun Belt or MAC teams? To raise their SOS teams would opt for a BCS team over a team that would lower its SOS.

Boise State has NEVER beaten a top 10 team. They are 0-5 since they turned D1A in 1996. They have lost 3 away, 1 at home and 1 at a neutral site. Over that span only 18 teams have played FEWER top 10 teams AWAY than Boise State has. (The average is 5.8 top 10 opponents played AWAY.)

The major conference have to play top 10 teams AWAY every year. OK, most are in conference but who cares. IF you want scheduling parity then FORCE the Boise States to play top 10 teams AWAY since there are none IN-Conference!!!

I'm not suggesting balanced schedules will necessarily encourage teams to schedule stronger competition. The primary purpose of balanced schedules is for everyone to compete on equal grounds. That said, even supposing teams pursue weak schedules to the same degree that they do now, requiring teams to play six road games and limiting their pool of weaklings to those in I-A will almost certainly make schedules more difficult. As for Boise State, I'm not defending their schedule, although I will argue that nonBCS teams typically face more parity even while playing less talented competition. The point being that BCS schools are not more brave with their scheduling just because they belong to BCS conferences. That said, Boise State should play top 10 competition, but they shouldn't always have to do it on the road. Furthermore, the rules in place provide no incentive for BCS teams to play the Boise States at all, especially on the road. FWIW, I think the objective rules I devised and continue to annoy posters about on this message board would do just that.