OOC Scheduling

[martinss01]

Without even looking those up, "B" looks like LSU's (or Florida's)...

I assumed LSU just because of Tulane's prominence on the list.

It's LSU.

so thats 3 votes for B. then?

 

[Flocka]

so thats 3 votes for B. then?

SEC is the best conference!!!!!!11!!1!!

 

[generaladm]

Unless I'm reading my Phil Steel magazine wrong, UVA isn't supposed to be very good this year. I'm not sure why USC is getting props for playing that game.

I think the more important point that they were making is that USC plays no non BCS teams. There are chumps in every BCS conference, but it sounds more impressive to claim you played all BCS teams.

 

[ScriptOhio]

Getting a Sun Belt Confrence team to play at your stadium isn't getting any cheaper, what would a BCS conference school want?

Florida Atlantic University's football team will return to Boca Raton after its Aug. 30 game against Texas with more than memories of its first matchup against the Longhorns. The Owls also will take home a check for $900,000. That's what it cost Texas to lure Florida Atlantic to Austin. In the business of college athletics, it's called a "buy" game, and in the current economic climate buying such non-conference contests has never cost more. "It's part of business; it's the marketplace," said Butch Worley, UT's senior associate athletics director who oversees football scheduling. "It's kind of supply and demand, and it gets pretty competitive." The $900,000 UT is paying Florida Atlantic is the most the Longhorns have ever cut to get an opponent to visit Austin. FAU will receive another $900,000 for a 2010 game at Royal-Memorial Stadium. Texas can afford it, though. With the expansion of the stadium to 94,113 seats this season, UT expects to gross about $5 million for each home game.

Entire article: Cost of luring non-conference games on the rise

 

[Shivvy77]

The revenue form the gate is only the tip of the ice berg. Home games are huge money making enterprises. Anyone who has stepped onto Lane Avenue during an OSU home game knows exactly what I am talking about. There are politics involved and the people making the decisions get their pockets lined, one way or another, by the revenue generated from home games.

 

[cincibuck]

So the answer, as it always is, is for fans to stop going to dog meat games.
Don't like the Chinese getting rich? Stop shopping at Wal-Mart. Don't like "reality TV?" Hit the off button. Think NFL pre-season games are a gyp? Don't buy the tickets.

OSU will schedule the YSU's of the world as long as they can A) fill the stadium B) sell cokes and nachos C) not have to give seats to students D) get an extra win to push them higher in the bowl games sweepstakes.

The only thing that will stop it is when the cameras open up and there are only 60,000 folks in the stands.

 

[BB73]

So the answer, as it always is, is for fans to stop going to dog meat games.

OSU will schedule the YSU's of the world as long as they can A) fill the stadium B) sell cokes and nachos

So those of us going to the YSU game have our head up our ass?

 

[generaladm]

A couple thoughts. For the foreseeable future, we're looking at 1 marquee BCS home and home, at least 1 Ohio team, hopefully 1 OOS mid-major (Navy, NM St.) at home, and 1 MAC level team, OOS or not, at home. The big question that I see is given the unpredictability of MAC level teams (e.g., Marshall without Pennington, Moss, Leftwich or NCST without Rivers is no better than your average Miami, OU, BGSU, Toledo, etc.), is it not better to sched an instate team to keep the money in Ohio? It sure looks like homerism, but as far as level of competition, I see it as a wash.

The other big question I see is - Are home and homes vs. a school like NCST or SDSU a possibility at this juncture? The difference in stadium capacity is just too large to overlook. A difference of 30k to 50k seats (at $60+ per pop) vs. home field advantage isn't worth it these days when those teams beating a top tier BCS team is a pipe dream at best. Granted, it does happen from time to time (NCST took OSU to 3OT in 04), but the gap between the perennial powerhouses and the also-rans seems to have widened in just the last 2-3 years. The same thing happens in HS ball; when I was at Colonel White HS in Dayton, we got our asses kicked at Middletown to pay for new jerseys.

The reality that seems to get lost in this debate is that the NC teams over the past few years have played no more than one premiere team OOC. In fact, the only truly monumental OOC game played by a NC team since 02 was the 05 UT/OSU game. OSU got taken to task last year for not having a statement OOC game, even though few other top tier BCS teams play a competitive OOC sched as often as OSU does. I say that playing a NC contender like Texas or USC is much riskier than playing a usual BCS also ran like Va. Tech, ASU, or Virginia. Over the past two seasons, the cards have lined up to provide a hater's delight for OSU haters in every way conceivable. For the next ten years, we will be in a position to make the NC game if we can run the table, or possibly lose an early game. Coach Tressel doesn't have the reputation of a gambler, but he sure knows how to play the odds.

 

[WyoBuck]

So those of us going to the YSU game have our head up our ass?

I may not have anything in this but my nose, but I tend to agree with what Cinci is saying. I am in the camp of "screw the revenue" right now (though I know that is not entirely possible and will NEVER happen) and schedule good games. What I mean by that is that I want to see us play the best competition that is feaseable, whether or not the stakes of us winning or losing increase. I would rather see us play all teams in conference, and 2 good OOC teams, even if we lost both, than to have 3-4 maeningless, stat-padding games that most of our guys sit out half the game because we win 50-7. Listen, I understand that it is good for Ohio to schedule in state games, but its really better for all of the other schools than it is for us. If we can play YSU w/o the stigma of beating a crippled 7 year old girl, then I'm all about it, but until that becomes a reality, I would rather take the chance of losing to a Kentucky, Duke, Oregon St., Kansas St., or any SEC team that was up to the challenge. *cough*..I'm looking in your direction ALABAMA, AUBURN, LSU, FLORIDA, GEORGIA. *cough* etc. I guess I really don't understand the problem, other then $$$, with playing 1 OOC warm-up, and 1 OOC test? Then, win your f'n conference and win your bowl game. It seems realtively simple. Schedule better opponents, win your games, and rise above the rest. I am aware that our OOC scheduling is not any more or less difficult than that of any other major competitor, but shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard, and through that success force other schools to equally embolden themselves to stiffer competition? If I am delusional, I would sincerely like to know. It just doesn't seem that it should be that difficult for major teams to schedule quality OOC opponents as long as everyone was trying to play as many "in conference games" as they can. Or hell, set a standard. In a 14 week season, schedule 11 conference games and then 2 more. If your feeling especially froggy, schedule a 14th, weak ass OOC opponent then, or another conference game. Is that soooo unreasonable?

 

[generaladm]

I may not have anything in this but my nose, but I tend to agree with what Cinci is saying. I am in the camp of "screw the revenue" right now (though I know that is not entirely possible and will NEVER happen) and schedule good games. What I mean by that is that I want to see us play the best competition that is feaseable, whether or not the stakes of us winning or losing increase. I would rather see us play all teams in conference, and 2 good OOC teams, even if we lost both, than to have 3-4 maeningless, stat-padding games that most of our guys sit out half the game because we win 50-7. Listen, I understand that it is good for Ohio to schedule in state games, but its really better for all of the other schools than it is for us. If we can play YSU w/o the stigma of beating a crippled 7 year old girl, then I'm all about it, but until that becomes a reality, I would rather take the chance of losing to a Kentucky, Duke, Oregon St., Kansas St., or any SEC team that was up to the challenge. *cough*..I'm looking in your direction ALABAMA, AUBURN, LSU, FLORIDA, GEORGIA. *cough* etc. I guess I really don't understand the problem, other then $$$, with playing 1 OOC warm-up, and 1 OOC test? Then, win your f'n conference and win your bowl game. It seems realtively simple. Schedule better opponents, win your games, and rise above the rest. I am aware that our OOC scheduling is not any more or less difficult than that of any other major competitor, but shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard, and through that success force other schools to equally embolden themselves to stiffer competition? If I am delusional, I would sincerely like to know. It just doesn't seem that it should be that difficult for major teams to schedule quality OOC opponents as long as everyone was trying to play as many "in conference games" as they can. Or hell, set a standard. In a 14 week season, schedule 11 conference games and then 2 more. If your feeling especially froggy, schedule a 14th, weak ass OOC opponent then, or another conference game. Is that soooo unreasonable?

Uh, yeah. As has been pointed out, in an 11 team conference, it's impossible to have an across the board conference sched of more than 8 games. Furthermore, look at other conference's top teams, you won't find any others with a tougher OOC sched (2007 as the exception to the rule).

 

[Buckeyescp]

i agree. 3 is way too many! we wanna see exciting matches anyway!

 

[Mac]

i agree. 3 is way too many! we wanna see exciting matches anyway!

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

Uh, yeah. As has been pointed out, in an 11 team conference, it's impossible to have an across the board conference sched of more than 8 games. Furthermore, look at other conference's top teams, you won't find any others with a tougher OOC sched (2007 as the exception to the rule).

It may be impossible to have 9 conference games, but I think each team playing 10 might possibly maybe be feasible. :p

 

[cincibuck]

So those of us going to the YSU game have our head up our ass?

In terms of getting the supplier to do what you want, i.e. stop scheduling scrimmage games @ $70 a pop, yes.

I didn't say it's what I do/would do/have done.

I said if the fans want to see it come to an end there's an easy way to make it happen.

 

[HailToMichigan]

Uh, yeah. As has been pointed out, in an 11 team conference, it's impossible to have an across the board conference sched of more than 8 games. Furthermore, look at other conference's top teams, you won't find any others with a tougher OOC sched (2007 as the exception to the rule).

I dunno if you mean historically, or just this year, but there are at least a couple other teams atop their conferences with tougher OOC skeds. USC in particular is very good about scheduling home-and-homes with "lesser" teams, even ones outside the BCS.