NCAA football, 2013-14

[alfred russel]

Yes and I blame the SEC for it.

It did work for Auburn and Missouri this year. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

Berkut's been on this anti-SEC pro-PAC thing for 4-5 years or longer. The reality is that extra Pac game means you can say those teams play a somewhat more difficult schedule. Doesn't mean they are better teams, nor does it mean the Pac is a better conference. History shows the SEC to have the superior teams over all. Does the SEC benefit from near constant ESPN handjobs and general overratedness? Yes, anyone who follows college football can see that, a loss in the SEC is never regarded the same as a loss in the Pac or the B1G (which usually ends those team's title hopes.)

But it's sort of like overselling the best car in the world, the SEC is oversold, but they are still legitimately the best conference largely for the reasons D4H mentioned.

The other reality is the BCS era proved that the extra conference game is not better for your conference, so the Pac has no one to blame but its commissioner (and by extension the university Presidents who are collectively his boss) for making a decision based on what I imagine to be financial motives instead of competitive ones.

[Berkut]

I said very clearly that the SEC has won the meta college football game - of course that means that they do in fact put out the best product, and overall are by far the best conference.

And yes, the extra game is NOT better for your conference, the SEC has proven that it is better for your conference to replace a quality in conference opponent with a complete patsy, because winning is more important than competitiveness.

I am not arguing with anything you are saying, I am just not accepting that these things are good for college football in general, even if they are good for the SEC.

It is simply laughable, for example, that you can sit there with a straight face and comment about the Pac-12 playing an extra game against a good in conference opponent, and have the audacity to even mention competitive reasons. I don't really care what the reasons are for playing another good game instead of another FCS or Nth tier patsy, the RESULT is another competitive and interesting game.

This is a *perfect* example of exactly the problem with this kind of thinking. All that matters is the result. If playing a chump patsy results in more wins and more bowl games for the SEC, then that is a good decision. Who cares if it results in less actual good football being played, you are a chump if you care about such silly things!

[Berkut]

Props to Saban, BTW - when the SEC voted whether to go to a 9 game conference schedule, he was the only head coach with the balls to vote in favor. The other 13 voted to keep playing an extra meaningless free win game.

[alfred russel]

I said very clearly that the SEC has won the meta college football game - of course that means that they do in fact put out the best product, and overall are by far the best conference.

And yes, the extra game is NOT better for your conference, the SEC has proven that it is better for your conference to replace a quality in conference opponent with a complete patsy, because winning is more important than competitiveness.

I am not arguing with anything you are saying, I am just not accepting that these things are good for college football in general, even if they are good for the SEC.

It is simply laughable, for example, that you can sit there with a straight face and comment about the Pac-12 playing an extra game against a good in conference opponent, and have the audacity to even mention competitive reasons. I don't really care what the reasons are for playing another good game instead of another FCS or Nth tier patsy, the RESULT is another competitive and interesting game.

This is a *perfect* example of exactly the problem with this kind of thinking. All that matters is the result. If playing a chump patsy results in more wins and more bowl games for the SEC, then that is a good decision. Who cares if it results in less actual good football being played, you are a chump if you care about such silly things!

I give the Pac 12 a lot of credit for going to 9 conference games. But they one of only two conferences that have done so, and the only one with a championship game. The SEC is doing what is normal--the Pac 12 is the outlier. Rather than the SEC building itself an advantage, the Pac 12 has built itself a disadvantage. To imply the SEC has "replaced" a conference opponent with a weak out of conference oponent is unfair: to my knowledge the Pac 12 and the Big 12 are the only conferences to ever play a 9 game schedule, and they have only done so for a few years. The SEC has never had a 9 game schedule. Maybe there was another conference with a 9 game schedule I'm forgetting, but it clearly has never been the norm.

If it was up to me, all the conferences would play a 9 game schedule (assuming enough teams). Games against FCS opponents would be banned. Possibly even the Sun Belt and MAC would be relegated to the FCS. But it isn't up to me, those aren't the rules, and the current system penalizes teams that try to schedule like that.

However, Berkut, aren't you an Arizona fan? Have you paid attention to your own team's out of conference scheduling?

[Valmy]

Surely the Big 10, pre-Penn State, had a nine game schedule.

Edit: Huh it appears they didn't.  That's lame.

[Valmy]

I have to say I like the 9 game Big 12 schedule.  Seeing Kansas on the schedule every year is comforting.

[frunk]

Replace the whole stupid system with a season long 11 game ranking tournament.  Each week teams play the closest (geographic) opponent that they haven't played yet with the same win/loss record.  Include every college football team out there.  Resolve uneven win/loss issues from the top down.  Develops regional rivalries since the top undefeated teams in an area will have to face each other.  Get some potential for Cinderella runs, and at most you'll have one undefeated team at the end.  Have bowl games or playoffs at the end if you want, whatever is preferred, but keep the excitement about the regular season.

[alfred russel]

Surely the Big 10, pre-Penn State, had a nine game schedule.

Edit: Huh it appears they didn't.  That's lame.

It was somewhat more difficult with an 11 game schedule.

I think the selling point for a 12 game schedule was that conferences would have the flexibility to go to 9 games. But only the Pac 10/12 did (and the Big 12 did after defections).

I like the Big 12 schedule, but I don't think it is so noble in intentions either. Some of the coaches in the Big 12 have been vocal about not wanting a championship game. An 8 game schedule plus a division champ is going to be easier on average than a 9 game schedule with that 9th game against a random conference opponent.

Frunk, that is not a good idea--there are a lot of rivalries and conference traditions in college football already, and that would do away with them.

[Valmy]

I like the Big 12 schedule, but I don't think it is so noble in intentions either.

Um no the Big 12 is not being run by Sir Galahad.  But it is not like you can really have a title game for a 10 team conference anyway.

[Valmy]

Frunk, that is not a good idea--there are a lot of rivalries and conference traditions in college football already, and that would do away with them.

It is an impossible idea.  You cannot improvise dozens of road games every week on the fly.

[alfred russel]

I like the Big 12 schedule, but I don't think it is so noble in intentions either.

Um no the Big 12 is not being run by Sir Galahad.  But it is not like you can really have a title game for a 10 team conference anyway.

This also comes down to whether the Big 12 should stick with 10 schools or go to 12.

My brother is a UCF grad and superfan and is convinced/deluded that the Big 12 will invite UCF. What do you think?

I tend to think, if the Big 12 expands, the obvious target is BYU (who has to accept at this point). I don't know the partner. Cincinnati? Houston? SMU? If they go to 14, UCF and USF could make some sense. But why that would make the conference better escapes me.

[frunk]

Frunk, that is not a good idea--there are a lot of rivalries and conference traditions in college football already, and that would do away with them.

These are developed from having a history.  If you start generating a history of similarly powerful teams playing each other new rivalries and traditions will be created, and old ones will pop back up again when appropriate. 

[frunk]

It is an impossible idea.  You cannot improvise dozens of road games every week on the fly.

Just about every week it would be possible to calculate who the possible following opponents would be before the matches are played, so teams would have at least a two week window on who they would be playing.  If it's a big concern split it into swiss type 3 or 4 week groupings of similarly ranked opponents.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The Big 12 is / was badly managed and at different points they could have acquired some attractive teams. At this point they are left with two difficult routes, route A they stick with what they have. This means they play 9 conference games a year but do not get the visibility of a conference championship game. Only time will tell how that would affect the Big 12 champion in making it into the four team playoff. Route B, they invite two additional teams, but dilute each team's revenue. The fear is since only slim pickings are left, if you add a Cincy or UCF you're looking at net revenue declines for the existing Big 12 schools.

My understanding is Texas refuses to sign off on any team that isn't going to build net revenue for the conference what that means obviously is adding the school increases the total conference revenue enough that each of the current team's preserves its current payout--the expectation is just adding Cincy and UCF or something doesn't give you the product necessary to go and negotiate a new TV deal and etc such that you can make that a reality.

I know BYU has always had a strong following in Mormon country so it's possible they could be a net revenue positive team, and as mentioned they do essentially have to accept a Big 12 offer. But that's one team, that maybe is net revenue positive. Not sure what team #2 would be. Cincinnati is a commuter school, UCF lives in a land of giants and is unlikely to attract tons of money even though it does have access to extremely fertile recruiting grounds. Connecticut is too far away, Houston maybe, I don't know. The Big 12 sat on the sidelines and reacted (weakly) to all of the conference realignment. It's embarrassing a conference with two historical college football superpowers like Oklahoma and Texas was outmaneuvered by a conference largely lead by North Carolina basketball schools.