• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

OOC preferences

  • I like 1 marquee home-and-home & 3 in-state schools

    Votes: 15 18.8%
  • 1 marquee opponents; 2 games against lesser out of state schools; 1 in-state school at home

    Votes: 61 76.3%
  • No in-state schools--it's a lose-lose

    Votes: 4 5.0%

  • Total voters
    80

ORD_Buckeye

Wrong glass, Sir.
I never had a problem when we started playing in-state schools, but now it's getting ridiculous--3 in one year. I have no desire to go down to Columbus and see us play Akron or YSU, and I end up selling--or giving away--my tickets; whereas, if we had another home-and-home with a lesser BCS team or even a mid-major in an interesting locale, I'd be more likely to attend. I'd much rather schedule a 2 for 1 or 3 for 1 with a San Diego State, San Jose State or Nevada (weekend in Lake Tahoe) than bringing another in-state school into Columbus for a payday.

What is the concensus?
 
I agree and disagree...I don't think they should have 3 in state teams, maybe 1 or 2 at most but not three. But I think its good because it's a a bragging right to the state (to those who do not know) that we are the best team in the state. Also its an opportunity for many of these kids to come to Columbus and play in a REAL stadium instead of their home stadiums. Like you said I wouldn't mind playing a mid major or even a lesser BCS team. GO BUCKS!
 
Upvote 0
The only OOC games worth playing are against top 10 BCS teams. Also, there should be a rule where we can drop and add games before the season starts. Our game against Washington this year is a perfect example. We should be able to drop this game and schedule a team like USC, LSU...
 
Upvote 0
Hrm... I don't know how I feel on any of the three to be honest, I think we should have 1 in state game, sure but I don't like the idea of us picking up walk over teams. However, I realize that in a lot of cases this is a benefit to the school we are playing since they get extra money for their program and some exposure that they would otherwise never receive. I think two marquee games would be ideal but odds are it would never happen, like singing for 4 years against the Pac10 and the SEC, and each year playing one of their top 4 teams for that period of time. Realistically, however, I realize that would never happen, the marquee games are already a big risk for any school that signs since the way the BCS is setup, if you lose one, then odds are you aren't going to the big dance.
 
Upvote 0
I think that it's wise for political reasons to let one or two in-state teams come through Ohio Stadium every year for a payday. Beyond that, I want to see more games outside of Columbus. Even though I have season tickets, I won't go down to Columbus to watch an in-state team but would gladly go to Vegas or Reno to see us play one of the Nevada teams or San Diego to see us play SDSU on a 2-1 or 3-1 basis. It would make the alumni in those areas very happy, and it would give us recruiting exposure (which in-state games do not).

Given that Cincy (since their getting a straight up home-and-home with Oklahoma) will probably never agree to another 4 for 1 arrangement with us again, means we could--by scheduling 1 in-state team in some years 2 teams in others--give the rest of the in-state schools an Ohio Stadium game every 4 or 5 years. I think that's fair and suitable.
 
Upvote 0
Personally I would like one marque opponent with two in state schools and one lesser out of state school. That seems like a good schedule that will contain at least three or four big games.
 
Upvote 0
The marquee opponent stipulation has been moot since 2005. Washington was a decent team when we first scheduled them, and starting in 2005 through 2017 we'll have played a marquee team every year with home-away series with Texas, USC, Miami (Fl), California, Virginia Tech, and Oklahoma.

With the 12-game schedule, we're forced to have four OOC games. After our annual marquee matchups we still have to find three OOC opponents each season. I don;t think we should travel to more than two of the OOC games, so in the years we're on the road for our marquee game, we need to have at least two of the remaining three at The Shoe, and what easier teams to schedule than in-state teams (and keep in mind we'll be already playing an in-state team anyway as mandated by law).

I say playing two in-state teams a year is no biggie.
 
Upvote 0
I don't agree with playing three in state games like that too. But here's what I would have planned. Remember the recent Mandel Mailbag? I would play one "King", one "Baron" or "Knight", and two in-state teams.

I was thinking about our OOC schedule, and here's the following.
Texas
USC
Miami (FL)
Cal
Virginia Tech
Oklahoma

Cal just sticks out like a sore thumb in that group. How about this instead...
USC, South Carolina
Miami (FL), Clemson
LSU (You've GOT to give them Kings), Cal
Virginia Tech (IMO, somewhere between Kings/Barons), TAMU
Oklahoma, Arkansas
 
Upvote 0
Cal makes a ton of sense. We haven't played a game in Nortern California since the early 80s. Between Silicon Valley, SF and Sacramento, we have a huge alumni base there, and it makes for a good trip for Ohio (and Chicago:wink: ) alumni. Plus, it' good recruiting exposure. The fact that Cal's program is on an upswing makes it even better.
 
Upvote 0
bigballin2987;899895; said:
The only OOC games worth playing are against top 10 BCS teams. Also, there should be a rule where we can drop and add games before the season starts. Our game against Washington this year is a perfect example. We should be able to drop this game and schedule a team like USC, LSU...
You can drop games. It'll just cost you about $500,000 to buy the other team out.
 
Upvote 0
In the era of the 12 game schedule the games outside the marquee OOC game just aren't going to be that great. I don't think any BCS programs would agree to a buy game at the Shoe. I'd rather see us play a Kent State and keep the money in state as opposed to someone out of the Sunbelt, CUSA, WAC, and MWC. Even though Florida Atlantic or Utah State have the allure of being an out of state team I don't think the result would be much different than with anyone one our Ohio OCC teams.

A number of schools like Miami Oh., Boise State and Utah are refusing to play buy games and settling for home and homes with lower to mid tier BCS schools.
 
Upvote 0
DaytonBuck;900082; said:
A number of schools like Miami Oh., Boise State and Utah are refusing to play buy games and settling for home and homes with lower to mid tier BCS schools.

If we offered Boise State or Utah a 2 for 1, I can't believe that they wouldn't jump at the chance. Although, other than their recent on-field success, Boise really doesn't bring anything to the table in terms of recruiting exposure or providing a great venue for the alumni to travel, in contrast to a UNLV or San Diego State.

As for Fredo, I'm adamantly against ever playing an away game at any in-state school. I'm ok with setting up a game at Paul Brown or Cleveland Stadium and calling it an "away game," but that's as far as it goes.
 
Upvote 0
ESPN: Q&a WITH Jim Delany

Talking about scheduling OOC games (among other things)...

Big Ten tour: Q&A with Jim Delany, Part II

July 31, 2008 11:10 AM
Posted by ESPN.com's Adam Rittenberg

[...]

As far as scheduling, you look at the Pac-10 and their nonconference schedules are very, very competitive. Are you satisfied with the scheduling in the Big Ten?

JD: If you look at where we were forty years ago -- I was looking at the schedules from 1966 -- we had far fewer games and far fewer mismatches, really sturdy kinds of opponents. Even if you maybe take a look at that twenty years ago, in the late eighties, they're stronger schedules than they are today. Again, fewer games, stronger matchups, more games with the Pac-10, more games out East. Historically, we really haven't played the SEC, in the regular season or in the postseason. So it's something we tried to do in the postseason, but they've got big stadiums, we have big stadiums. Big stadiums typically don't play big stadiums just because of the value of the gate. Everyone talks about TV, but the turnstiles are what drives the revenue, which is what drives the athletic department. Michigan is already playing an away game every other year (at Notre Dame), Ohio State is as well. Penn State historically has, but not recently. In my heart of hearts, I'm the guy that's largely behind the (ACC/Big Ten) Challenge, I'm the guy that's largely behind the Big Ten-SEC bowl games. They weren't here before. I'm the guy who wants to play the SEC, the Big 12, the Pac-10. So if anything, I could be accused of overscheduling, not underscheduling, but our schools are going to be the ones who determine what's best for building their programs. (Some) programs are a stage where they're trying to get respect, others are trying to get a bowl game, others are trying to pay for all of the programs. The one thing that hasn't changed in the 20 years since I've come here is that football and basketball still provide 98 percent of the revenues. We've grown women's opportunities, we've gotten better at other sports, we've won championships in other sports. But the fact of it is, they're going to have to pay their way, and that means healthy football and healthy football means winning football. So that time means you have to manage you've got to manage your schedule in a way that makes sense.

Is there a model for scheduling in the Big Ten?
JD: I don't think there is a model. The Pac-10 has got a good situation, but they've got the 5-4, they can play a full round robin. I like that. I would tend to be more in that direction, but I also understand that Minnesota, Indiana, Northwestern, Purdue, have historically been in the second division. They don't have the legacy of the bowls in the way that Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan will have. What we've seen overall, with the growth of television and the growth of bowls and perhaps, maybe, weaker nonconference scheduling, is the growth of the middle class in terms of their own brand, in terms of their own strength, in terms of the perception. So you have to be careful when you say, 'You should be playing Oregon.' The fact of it is, Indiana did beat Oregon a couple years ago in the preseason (2004). But they're much more likely to beat Ball State than they are to beat Oregon. From a TV perspective, are those games better? But it's a combination of what the fan base demands, what the athletic director believes is appropriate. How much is stepping out? If you have them into a bowl game just twice in the last decade, you're going to put that pretty high on your priority list and not necessarily just (schedule) the best game. People do point out the Pac-10 and the Pac-10 maybe plays (a tough schedule) year in and year out, but they have far fewer choices because there are only four conferences that are east of the Mississippi. The other thing is I don't see everybody's feet being held to the fire with regard to nonconference scheduling. Some people don't even leave their own state. Our top teams have always played Notre Dame and historically, those have been good challenges. We've played lots of Pac-10 teams and we used to play more teams in the East, more Boston Colleges, more Syracuses, and I've encouraged our teams. We've got some that are playing N.C. State, have played North Carolina, Virginia. But also, you have to have two people who want to play.

cont'd...
 
Upvote 0
My .02:

Its economics.

8 B10 games = 4 home games + 1 marquee OOC/ Fredo x 3 = 7-8 home games a year. IIRC a home game = 1M+ in revenue.

If you start playing the mid major out of state games you are going to be on the road eventually in a 50K seat stadium while the Shoe sits empty. Recruiting exposure and alumni trips be damned, thats missed revenue.

Recruiting exposure is the least valid reason I hear in these conversations imo. Our TV exposure, name recognition and the Bowl game take care of that.


I know its boring but the one premium OOC opponent + Fredo x 3 is the best way to do it.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top