Leveling the playing field: Conferences with a 9-game schedule vs 8-game conference schedules

[Conan]

Great read on this subject. You'd think the computers or polls would have figured out how to throw out the extra game to balance things out... nope. At least the Big-10 has plans to up the ante and go to a 9-game schedule in the future.


Big Ten going to nine conference games

August, 4, 2011
12:57
PM ET

By Ted Miller

The good news is a third automatic qualifying conference is going to a nine-game conference schedule, joining the Pac-12 and Big 12. The bad news is the Big Ten won't adopt the change until 2017.

Still, one of the controversial aspects of the Pac-10 and now the Pac-12 -- a nine-game conference schedule hurts a conference in the computer and human polls and makes for fewer bowl-eligible teams -- is becoming more the standard, not the exception.

The big question: Will the SEC follow suit?

Answer: Don't hold your breath. Not if the conference isn't forced to by the other automatic qualifying conferences making up the BCS, which should do exactly that in order to standardize scheduling. Otherwise, the Pac-12, Big Ten and Big 12 are competing on a more challenging playing field than the SEC and ACC, which also plays eight conference games.

Why would the SEC resist a nine-game schedule? Lots of reasons.

For one, it doesn't need a ninth conference game, like Pac-12 athletic directors would have you believe they do. SEC fans are so dedicated to their teams, they will sell out their home stadiums even to see a directional school. So why would SEC teams potentially give up an easy home win for a potential road loss?

SEC athletic directors are well aware that when their teams go West, they more often than not get stomped -- just ask Auburn, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee and Mississippi State (tip of the cap to LSU for traveling and winning, by the way).

Some SEC folks will get all magnanimous and tell you that playing East Patsy State helps the Fighting Petunias financially. So its about noblesse oblige.

Bollocks.

What it's really about is making life easier for the SEC. The top teams get an extra easy win, and the extra patsy means the bottom SEC teams can schedule four wins annually. That means the SEC bottom-feeders can schedule all the way to two games short of bowl eligibility.

Then, when eight or so teams are bowl eligible, pundits will be wowed by the depth of the SEC.

Further, the top-line SEC teams strength of schedule will be boosted by beating conference teams that schedule their way to a winning record or at least four wins.

Finally, eight conference games helps get teams preseason rankings, which is invaluable to the perception of a conference as well as the fortunes of its individual teams.

For example, take Mississippi State. Here's what they did last year. The Bulldogs have improved under Dan Mullen, but they would have been a middle-of-the-road team in the Pac-10 in 2010. They didn't beat any good teams, but they ended up 9-4 due to scheduling and finished ranked a wildly-inflated 15th.

And that earned them a No. 20 preseason ranking in the coaches poll, which the Bulldogs figure to maintain because they've scheduled four easy nonconference victories again: Memphis, Louisiana Tech, UAB and Tennessee-Martin.

No offense Mississippi State, but we'd love to see you schedule a game out West. You might enjoy a trip away from Starkville.

While we tweak in jest -- we're all friends here, right? -- this is a substantive issue.

Starting in 2017, you will have three conferences playing by one set of rules. And two others playing by another. That isn't good for college football.

 

[WinOne]

Great read on this subject. You'd think the computers or polls would have figured out how to throw out the extra game to balance things out... nope. At least the Big-10 has plans to up the ante and go to a 9-game schedule in the future.


Big Ten going to nine conference games

August, 4, 2011
12:57
PM ET

By Ted Miller

The good news is a third automatic qualifying conference is going to a nine-game conference schedule, joining the Pac-12 and Big 12. The bad news is the Big Ten won't adopt the change until 2017.

Still, one of the controversial aspects of the Pac-10 and now the Pac-12 -- a nine-game conference schedule hurts a conference in the computer and human polls and makes for fewer bowl-eligible teams -- is becoming more the standard, not the exception.

The big question: Will the SEC follow suit?

Answer: Don't hold your breath. Not if the conference isn't forced to by the other automatic qualifying conferences making up the BCS, which should do exactly that in order to standardize scheduling. Otherwise, the Pac-12, Big Ten and Big 12 are competing on a more challenging playing field than the SEC and ACC, which also plays eight conference games.

Why would the SEC resist a nine-game schedule? Lots of reasons.

For one, it doesn't need a ninth conference game, like Pac-12 athletic directors would have you believe they do. SEC fans are so dedicated to their teams, they will sell out their home stadiums even to see a directional school. So why would SEC teams potentially give up an easy home win for a potential road loss?

SEC athletic directors are well aware that when their teams go West, they more often than not get stomped -- just ask Auburn, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee and Mississippi State (tip of the cap to LSU for traveling and winning, by the way).

Some SEC folks will get all magnanimous and tell you that playing East Patsy State helps the Fighting Petunias financially. So its about noblesse oblige.

Bollocks.

What it's really about is making life easier for the SEC. The top teams get an extra easy win, and the extra patsy means the bottom SEC teams can schedule four wins annually. That means the SEC bottom-feeders can schedule all the way to two games short of bowl eligibility.

Then, when eight or so teams are bowl eligible, pundits will be wowed by the depth of the SEC.

Further, the top-line SEC teams strength of schedule will be boosted by beating conference teams that schedule their way to a winning record or at least four wins.

Finally, eight conference games helps get teams preseason rankings, which is invaluable to the perception of a conference as well as the fortunes of its individual teams.

For example, take Mississippi State. Here's what they did last year. The Bulldogs have improved under Dan Mullen, but they would have been a middle-of-the-road team in the Pac-10 in 2010. They didn't beat any good teams, but they ended up 9-4 due to scheduling and finished ranked a wildly-inflated 15th.

And that earned them a No. 20 preseason ranking in the coaches poll, which the Bulldogs figure to maintain because they've scheduled four easy nonconference victories again: Memphis, Louisiana Tech, UAB and Tennessee-Martin.

No offense Mississippi State, but we'd love to see you schedule a game out West. You might enjoy a trip away from Starkville.

While we tweak in jest -- we're all friends here, right? -- this is a substantive issue.

Starting in 2017, you will have three conferences playing by one set of rules. And two others playing by another. That isn't good for college football.

That's not a new argument but one well worth discussing. I heard Ivan Maisel talk about this a couple years ago in depth. It's a disadvantage from a conference standpoint (bottom teams can schedule easy wins) as well as revenue (schedule 4 non conference home games means more revenue for a school). I remember back in the mid-late 80's when I was at ASU. Our program was so good we had both Florida State and Okie State come to Tempe to play us and we only returned the visit to Okie St 4 yrs later.

The fact that the Big Ten changing in 2017 is a joke. But hey, that's your grandfathers kind of football. Their secretaries probably still use typewriters instead of laptops and mobile hotspots.

 

[GoSooners]

Obviously a decision driven by money. The more money commish Delaney keeps in conference, the more he rakes in. This doesn't take affect until 2017. I'll be curious if going to a 16 team conference down the road will change the dynamics. The only real negative I can see out of it is less marquee matchups between the Big 10 and the other BCS conferences. Which isn't really a good thing for the Big 10's rep given their recent record against strong OOC opponents.

 

[ChrisParadise]

todays coaches poll has 8 sec teams in top 25, 2 from the pac-12

so with both conferences having 12 that means with 8 games schedule a SEC team is guaranteed to play 4 top 25 teams at the least , a pac-12 team will play 2 at the most .

add on the conference championship game (wait, i thought you wanted a playoff?) and thats 9 conference games with 5+ top 25 opponents

if we want to level the playing field all BCS conferences should be forced to have a conference championship game so the winner has at least more than 1 semi challenging game before the bowl game

 

[BigdaddyQH]

The ONLY reason why the Pac 12 HAD to stay at a 9 Conference game schedule is because the Pac 12 made a deal with the California Schools so they contunued to play each other every year, despite having two teams in each division. Had they gone to an 8 conference game schedule, with 5 divisional games plus the yearly games with each other, the California that would leave two games per year with the other 4 non-divisional conference schools. That would not cut it in the Pac 12.

 

[GoSooners]

It wouldn't surprise me if the NCAA gave their blessing down the road for a 13th regular season game. It would also be an attempt to try an avoid a playoff by saying "we now have too long of a regular season."

 

[BigdaddyQH]

If you travel to Hawaii, you get a 13th game. USC loves to travel to Hawaii, especally over Labor Day Weekend. It makes for a nice vacation for the Alum.

 

[Well-Seasoned]

todays coaches poll has 8 sec teams in top 25, 2 from the pac-12

so with both conferences having 12 that means with 8 games schedule a SEC team is guaranteed to play 4 top 25 teams at the least , a pac-12 team will play 2 at the most .

add on the conference championship game (wait, i thought you wanted a playoff?) and thats 9 conference games with 5+ top 25 opponents

if we want to level the playing field all BCS conferences should be forced to have a conference championship game so the winner has at least more than 1 semi challenging game before the bowl game

Great post CP. I agree.

 

[Albatross]

todays coaches poll has 8 sec teams in top 25, 2 from the pac-12

so with both conferences having 12 that means with 8 games schedule a SEC team is guaranteed to play 4 top 25 teams at the least , a pac-12 team will play 2 at the most .

add on the conference championship game (wait, i thought you wanted a playoff?) and thats 9 conference games with 5+ top 25 opponents

if we want to level the playing field all BCS conferences should be forced to have a conference championship game so the winner has at least more than 1 semi challenging game before the bowl game

That plus the fact that no conference has be able to knock the sec off the top for the past 5 years. That carries weight. Don't expect the scheduling to change until another conference emerges as king of college football.

 

[EatTheChalk]

Poor journalism. The question never gets asked: why does the SEC (or any conference) need to switch to a 9-game conference schedule? Seriously, if you're the SEC, why make any changes? You have seen 5 straight national champions. If the SEC seemingly has a magic potion of scheduling light, then other conferences would surely follow suit. The fact is, the SEC's reputation stands on its own merit, and that merit can be seen in the valuation of teams through the various computer rankings (nevermind the 5-straight national champions). But tell us how these SEC Champions did not properly prove their worth:

Auburn - 2010 - 13th rated schedule, 4-0 vs. top 10 (#1 in country), 7-0 vs. top 30 (#1 in country)
Alabama - 2009 - 2nd rated schedule, 3-0 vs. top 10 (#1 in country), 7-0 vs. top 30 (#1 in country)
Florida - 2008 - 4th rated schedule, 2-1 vs. top 10 (Utah was 2-0 vs. top 10 teams), 5-1 vs. top 30 (tied for #1 with Southern Cal who had the 16th rated schedule)
LSU - 2007 - 11th rated schedule, 2-0 vs. top 10 (#1 in country), 5-2 vs. top 30 (USC/Georgia 4-1 vs. top 30)
Florida - 2006 - 8th rated schedule, 2-0 vs. top 10 (#1 in country, Auburn was 2-0 vs. top 10), 7-1 vs. top 30 (#1 in country)

The bottom line is that the SEC Champion *does* play a 9-game conference schedule, and that's really the only relevant team to consider when talking about National Championships or even BCS automatic qualifiers.

-etc

 

[Conan]

The bottom line Albatross is that conferences that will have both a 9-game conference schedule AND a championship game will play 10 conference games every year starting this season.

They don't rate the toughness of a team's schedule by adding the easy games, they just count the hard games and the combined records of their opponents. I understood Miller's point when he said that the worst teams in the SEC have inflated W/L records because they can use their easy OOC games including an extra win to look better. That increases the value of the wins the top teams had when they played them so now everyone's record and SOS has been inflated by the extra win and one loss less for everyone in the conference.

All those wins vs top teams were NOT vs anyone that played outside the same conference that has inflated everyone's W/L record with one less conference game and 4 easy OOC games in most cases... if not 4 games, than in any case it is still MORE wins than conferences with teams that play a 9-game schedule that GUARANTEES an extra 6 losses. Mathematically it cannot be any other way.

The facts can't be argued. Anyone that thinks none of this matters is fooling themselves because no matter how you cut it, it's still comparing apples to Oranges. That point cannot be argued. When you are guaranteed 6 more losses to spread around than the next guy who that cannot possibly have happen to them who will appear weaker before even a month goes by?

Each loss a team suffers is going to affect their rank by AT LEAST 5 or more spots in the rankings PER LOSS. Probably more than that. Can anyone disagree and say that this is not typical?

In addition to that, every team that beats them would also suffer one or two rank places themselves because the quality of their wins is less than it would have been if those 6 losses were not spread around the conference for winning teams to suffer for too. Can anyone disagree with that?

You can come up with every reason you want to keep it the way it is, especially if there are advantages to it such as where a team like Miss. St. can boast of a 9-4 record which includes 4 wins before they ever play their conference schedule? You can justify it all you want but you can't say you are looking at all teams the same way if you can't see the disadvantages and how they skew the rankings and perceptions people and polls are designed not to allow for. Slap 4 wins onto WSU and now they are bowl eligible. Can't you see how that scheduling method skews the record?

If every SEC team had to pay a 100 point penalty in BCS points for setting their conference up to play with a guarantee of 6 less losses than teams that played in conferences with an additional conference game, you might want to rethink your position. You can never justify how 6 extra losses don't skew the polls and teams records and make valid comparisons regardless. If you don't factor in that disadvantage, you are skewed too.

 

[Conan]

todays coaches poll has 8 sec teams in top 25, 2 from the pac-12

so with both conferences having 12 that means with 8 games schedule a SEC team is guaranteed to play 4 top 25 teams at the least , a pac-12 team will play 2 at the most .

add on the conference championship game (wait, i thought you wanted a playoff?) and thats 9 conference games with 5+ top 25 opponents

if we want to level the playing field all BCS conferences should be forced to have a conference championship game so the winner has at least more than 1 semi challenging game before the bowl game

First off. I disagree because you think comparing apples to oranges is being truthful. But you are not truthful because you bought the big lie and can't understand the math that created a skewed perception that you don't even see exists. I won't go into every detail because the poll numbers you are using are based on a system that penalized every winning team in the Pac-12 conference anywhere between 6 and 12 poll positions because their opponents have been slapped with 6 guaranteed losses and that makes their wins less valuable in the poll rankings.

That is what happens to any conference that plays an extra conference game. Their rankings will suffer when compared to teams that only play 8 conference games. It HAS TO. The system says it has to. It's a mathematical certainty. You could do this blindfolded and not ever name the teams you are calculating the BCS points for including their SOS points and it will turn out the same way every time with the conference that has the fewer conference games coming out ahead 100 out of 100 tries especially if at least half if not most teams schedule 4 extra home games vs directional schools.

And you can sit there quoting poll numbers that these factors affect directly and not see this? Are you kidding me? Please don't start acting stupid. This is not the time for it. If you have to invent simulated EA sports conferences and teams with similar schedules just to see my point, please do. You run straignt for the ammo box every time anyone brings up any kind of point that mentions an advantage that the SEC enjoys and you try denying it and quoting heroic football legends and such just to change the subject so you can protect something you want everyone to think is better than sliced bread. Don't waste my time or anyone else who is apt to suffer a short term sympathetic overload from your emotional displays of brain activity in your medulla oblongata instead of using your cerebral cortex as you know you should. You are not doing yourself a favor like you think you are. You are hurting your credibility if you think otherwise.

This is supposed to be more of an academic discussion involving different scheduling scenarios, not a pom pom waiving cheerleader event. But go ahead and turn this into a pissing match and change the subject away from how 9-game and 8-game conference schedules affect teams. There you go missing the whole POINT again because you are defensive extraordinaire and you can't see the simple math any longer due to your emotional reactions.

Second, back on point. You left out Lane Kiffins team. I don't EVEN want to go there.

 

[Conan]

CP

However I do agree with you that I'd like to see every conference have a championship game.

But in all fairness to the schools involved, that would mean that there has to be a reason why a team that finished first in a single division conference should have to reprove that they already won the conference where every team's schedule was equal to every other team in their conference when the season ended.

In cases where a team had already beaten their CCG opponent, they have to beat them twice where their opponent only needs to win once and they may not even be entering the championship game with as many wins as their opponent. You have to have at least 2 divisions to have any hope of fairness in an championship game.

No mater, if it means that every conference needs 12 teams so every team did not play every other team on an equal basis which would necessitate a championship game, then so be it. I'm all for a level playing field but I mean it in every respect, not just in ways that are more convenient to some and ignore any that provide an advantage for some schools over everyone else.

 

[CoachCB]

Conan,

You can generally find some decent stuff out there to argue the SEC is dirty (arrests, over-signing, etc). This, however, isn't one of them.

The SEC used to play a SIX game conference schedule up until 1992 when they - being the FIRST college conference to take the risk - went to two divisions and created a conference championship game....then they went to 8 games. There is no justified arguement to force a conference - in the case the mean bully, the SEC - to go to 9 games. The SEC schedules are tough enough regardless of who they play OOC.....no need to add another conference game.

There is no need for me - or any other SEC fan - to try and "argue" w/ you on this topic. It's a non-issue. The SEC scheduling system is just fine.

This is simply another case of SEC haters whining and crying....

---

 

[Conan]

It's not about whining and crying Coach. It's about fairness so CFB can benefit from a level playing field, nothing more. The way things stand, conferences with fewer conference games scheduled, even if they have the same number of teams receive benefits from that not everyone can have. That is the only issue.

I also acknowledge that the SEC didn't go out and create this situation. It just happened when some conferences with just 10 schools were able to have a total round robin conference schedule that in itself leveled the playing field for every team in it's own conference the best way possible. Everyone plays everyone every year. It is the best way to determine a champion because one team cannot claim that the other team had it easier because they didn't have to play someone that they played. If that isn't possible to make a reality, then splitting the conference into more divisions and having a conference championship game is the next best way of doing it. That's how the NCAA sees it. However the imbalance that is created when different conferences play a different number of conference games was not anticipated... like how many rules are tested over time. These scheduling rules that determine conference champions have run their course and the problems with those rules have become clear. The rules provide for some teams to have an advantage over others that play in a different conference. This is not good for the game.

Were it not for the fact that 6 extra losses affects almost every team in the conference in terms of poll results and bowl eligibility, there would be no argument. No harm no foul. But the way polls are figured and the way W/L records come into play in terms of bowl eligibility, in every conference that uses a 9-game conference schedule as opposed to 8 games, half the teams in the conference will be directly affected with an extra guaranteed loss, and everyone that beat them will be indirectly affected by weakening their SOS 6 times every season because 6 of their opponents received an extra guaranteed loss. (or at least 5 losses against their SOS if the team they didn't play in the opposite division lost the extra conference game.) No matter how you cut it, this costs BCS points and rankings that work against every team in the conference. That is what (hopefully) is being discussed. The question boils down to creating a level playing field for all teams with respect to how their season's schedules are formatted. Nothing else.

It only SEEMS like an anti SEC rant because the SEC HAPPENS to be in the position of having the scheduling advantage. So when schools are named, it's only natural that the SEC is on the receiving end of the criticism for benefiting from this advantage. But as I agreed, they didn't create the discrepancy, it just grew up around them that way. And it wasn't the Pac-10's fault either for using the most equitable round-robin schedule that is the most fair to all of its members. Nevertheless it exists and needs to be changed so everyone plays by the same rules that treat every team and every conference equally.

 

[EatTheChalk]

This is clearly a case of misplaced aggression. Consider the following average strength of schedule measures for each of the Big 6 conferences:

ACC:
2010 - 37.3
2009 - 25.7
2008 - 23.1
2007 - 39.4
2006 - 47.6

Big East:
2010 - 60.5
2009 - 44.0
2008 - 55.5
2007 - 48.0
2006 - 36.3

Big Ten:
2010 - 53.9
2009 - 56.5
2008 - 58.5
2007 - 59.6
2006 - 40.6

Big 12:
2010 - 38.3
2009 - 48.0
2008 - 32.7
2007 - 34.8
2006 - 56.6

PAC 10:
2010 - 5.5
2009 - 21.4
2008 - 21.3
2007 - 10.7
2006 - 6.9

SEC:
2010 - 27.8
2009 - 15.4
2008 - 23.8
2007 - 20.0
2006 - 19.3

Ok, from these numbers, clearly we can see that the PAC 10 has achieved the best rating in terms of overall relative strength of schedule, right? Clearly we can see that the SEC is #2 based on these numbers. There are 4 other conferences to pick on here if these numbers are your primary targets for improvement.

But wait, the claim had to do with boosted numbers due to beating up on crappy teams, right? Let's see how the PAC 10 and SEC compare when looking at records vs. top 10 and records vs. top 30 over the past 5 seasons:

PAC 10:
2010 - 1-20 vs. top 10; 28-48 vs. top 30
2009 - 1-4 vs. top 10; 10-29 vs. top 30
2008 - 2-12 vs. top 10; 16-40 vs. top 30
2007 - 6-12 vs. top 10; 22-33 vs. top 30
2006 - 5-16 vs. top 10; 14-29 vs. top 30
-----------------------------------------------
5-yr - 15-64 vs. top 10 (.190); 90-179 vs. top 30 (.335)

SEC:
2010 - 8-28 vs. top 10; 22-43 vs. top 30
2009 - 4-19 vs. top 10; 27-42 vs. top 30
2008 - 7-23 vs. top 10; 17-37 vs. top 30
2007 - 8-21 vs. top 10; 26-44 vs. top 30
2006 - 5-19 vs. top 10; 31-50 vs. top 30
-----------------------------------------------
5-yr - 32-110 vs. top 10 (.225); 123-216 vs. top 30 (.363)

So not only do we see that the SEC teams play more teams at the top of the rankings, but they fare better against these teams than does the PAC 10. Whether or not it's a significant margin is always debatable, but the numbers do in fact refute the argument posed (which, oddly enough, was provided without any supporting data).

This post isn't a "ra-ra SEC" post, it's strictly a rebuttal based on actual recorded data (in this case using the Sagarin ratings). Say what you want about how much you like or do not like the official BCS computer rankings, but as long as they are in place to determine placement for the national championship game, it would be foolish to not schedule for success, and that is exactly what the SEC does and they have been doing it better than any other conference.

So again, why should the SEC or any conference be forced to use a 9-game regular season conference schedule?

-etc

 

[BigdaddyQH]

I think that if we ever get to the 16 team "Spuer Conferences", you will see the NCAA determine the number of Conference Games that will be played. Until then, there are just too many conferences with different numbers of teams. Today, we have 4 Conferences with 12 teams, one with 10, and one with 8, in the BCS. The 4 Conferences with 12 teams are the ACC, Big 10, Pac 12, and the SEC. The Pac 12 is in a different situation than the other three because they have two teams in the North Division (Cal and Stanford) that MUST play two teams in the South Division (UCLA and USC), EVERY year. No other conference has that. Because of this, the Pac 12 must play 9 conference games. When the Conferences go to 16 teams, those 4 teams will be in the same conference, and that arrangement will not be necessary.

 

[RunLeeRun]

So not only do we see that the SEC teams play more teams at the top of the rankings, but they fare better against these teams than does the PAC 10. Whether or not it's a significant margin is always debatable, but the numbers do in fact refute the argument posed (which, oddly enough, was provided without any supporting data).

You are missing the point. When a team loses they lose spots in the ranking. When 8-game conferences are playing that 4th cupcake with a potential of going 12-0, a 9-game conference is playing itself going 6-6. No matter what stat you bring is going to be seriously altered because the playing field is not level. Those stats have a margin of error that's probably so great to not even make the argument to begin with. The data is there in fact. 9 game conference guaranteed 6 losses, when the 8 game conference is guaranteed ZERO. We can't know what the true loss in ranking would be, but an educated guess is: considerable.

This post isn't a "ra-ra SEC" post, it's strictly a rebuttal based on actual recorded data (in this case using the Sagarin ratings). Say what you want about how much you like or do not like the official BCS computer rankings, but as long as they are in place to determine placement for the national championship game, it would be foolish to not schedule for success, and that is exactly what the SEC does and they have been doing it better than any other conference.

You're right. It's obvious that the top priority is winning. I don't claim to be an expert on either the Pac-10/12 or SEC, but at least from my perspective it appears that total fairness is of more importance in the Pac-12. The SEC is happy with their system, too.

So again, why should the SEC or any conference be forced to use a 9-game regular season conference schedule?

-etc

We know the SEC wont' change it unless forced or pressured. It was tough enough for them to cut out the oversigning.

 

[Conan]

The reason for doing it is to make everyone play by the same rules. This isn't JUST about making the SEC snap to it. It's more basic than that. It's about creating a level playing field for EVERYONE.

Those more top of the ranking teams gained their position by playing teams that had opponents with 6 fewer losses. That makes them look better compared to playing a schedule vs opponents with 6 more losses. Nobody else in any other conference playing 9 conference games has the advantage of playing teams with fewer guaranteed losses. That's the problem. It's not an equal proposition.

In addition to that, and I'm leaving this up to your own judgment, but when a team gets to play 4 home games vs Patsy U, and winds up with 4 relatively worthless wins that prove nothing, is it fair to teams that don't schedule their OOC teams that way if their wins are judged the same way by the numbers? Losses affect poll rankings like nothing else. A 4-0 team with wins vs 4 patsies is going to get a better shake than a team with one loss vs a good opponent and 2 wins vs average or lesser competition.

How can anyone say that if the team that plays the 9-game schedule had instead scheduled 1 extra patsy to play at home and their conference opponents had 6 fewer losses, they wouldn't have been ranked higher than they were? Those factors affect rankings. So how is ANY comparison using the rankings of your opponents totally accurate when everyone in their conference gets the SOS boost from that extra home win and 6 fewer opponent's losses in any given season? It's apples vs oranges.

I can't see how a W/L record with more losses cannot have a detrimental impact on ANY conference compared to playing a season with 6 fewer losses and the possibility of 6 more wins in 6 more home games.

What would Sagarin's numbers have looked like if the Pac-10 played the same 8-game conferfence schedule with 6 fewer losses and 4 cupcake wins every year? You don't think they would have ranked a lot higher with the cellar dwellers of the conference having a 4-0 OOC record every season? And how many more teams would have been ranked higher had they played 4 directional teams at home instead of that extra conference game with half the conference losing that game? (6 times)

Aside from that, Sagarin is just one of 6 computer systems that have a combined impact of just 1/3 of the BCS ranking system. Human polls are a lot easier and more likely to be affected when judging a team that has one more loss or all of its opponents combined have 6 more losses. 2/3 of the BCS formula is based on human polls. How is it possible for an extra loss to be a good thing or to not even count against a team and everyone that played them? That escapes me.

If you want to know why the extra home game is a good thing for the SEC as a whole, consider that anywhere from 1/4 to 1/2 million is paid out to the visiting cupcake in every game. That makes 12 teams that pay out a total of $3 million to $6 million per year to teams out of the conference for that 4th OOC game. If they played another SEC team instead, that money would stay in the SEC instead of spent elsewhere. That may not see, like very much compared to a big TV contract, but hey, we're just talking about one measly cupcake game. And as far as the TV money is concerned, that extra 8% more conference games for a network to televise should amount to an 8% bigger TV deal. So it's not like anyone is denying anybody all this home ticket sales money for one game for nothing. Half the time there will be that extra home game anyway, but with more value that CBS will have to pay for.

It's really not so bad of a deal. But for the sake of making everyone in the sport play with equal scheduling rules, the whole game of college football benefits from that.

 

[CoachCB]

Conan, the point of playing 9 teams makes no sense ('they all play each other')....well, if that was the case, the SEC would play an 11 game conference schedule. RIDICULOUS!

What needs to happen here is this: Stop trying to fix something that's not broken....

---