Should the NCAA be in charge of non-conference schedules?
After reading a post on the Orlando Sentinel’s college football blog a while back about a study done on strength of non-conference schedules, it got me thinking about just how much discussion, debate and controversy is generated by non-conference schedules and the strength (or lack thereof) of many of college football’s best teams and how all of that might be avoided.
It seems borderline corrupt to me that powerhouse schools pay tomato cans to show up at their place in early September (and sometimes later into the season for some SEC schools) to get their brains beat out before an sold-out stadium just biding their time before the real football begins. Yes, some teams have been bold enough to schedule a marquee conference game (USC, Ohio State, Texas, Virginia Tech and LSU most readily come to mind) but by and large, the first three weeks before conference games begin are pretty mundane and uninteresting (unless you’re a Michigan fan).
Of course strength of schedule wouldn’t be an issue if it didn’t factor so heavily into the national championship equation. A team like Hawaii with a dud of a non-conference and conference schedule last year was able to skate their way into a BCS bowl and then got their teeth kicked in on national television. Schedules matter in college football because there’s only 12 games (13 in the case of conferences with conference championships). Since there is no longer a factor for strength of schedule into the BCS equation, strength of schedule has once again become a hot topic with college football’s fanbase.
So how do we lay all of this debate to bed?
By allowing the NCAA to generate non-conference schedules.
No longer are athletic departments buying games and there is no more debate about strength of schedule if the conferences allow the NCAA to act as the NFL does and schedule all of the non-conference games. The conferences would still be responsible for scheduling the majority of the season and no longer would fans have any gripe about a rival team hosting a FCS team in the middle of October. It’d be easy to convince schools to do this. More high-profile games in the non-conference means more fan and national interest which means more money and I’ve never met an athletic director or university president that didn’t like the concept of more money coming in the door.
It would work like this in my system:
The NCAA would be responsible for selecting opponents for every team in Div. 1-A football for the first three games of the season. The opponents would be randomly selected from certain pools. Each team would draw one game from each of the following pool of opponents:
- Pool A: The AP/Coaches Poll Top 25 from the previous season. These polls are far too inconsequential and coaches don’t take them seriously enough, letting assistant coaches fill out their ballots. Maybe now they’ll start paying attention.Does not include conference opponents.
- Pool B: All other BCS schools again not including conference opponents.
- Pool C: Non-BCS opponents (Conference USA, Sun Belt, WAC, Mountain West, etc.)
This system also has a provision for the top schools in the FCS or what was formerly Div. I-AA. The top four teams from the previous season played their way into Pool C and could be selected.
While I fully acknowledge that this system has virtually no chance of being picked up since we all know how much college football embraces widespread change, it’d be fun to think about match-ups like Georgia/Wisconsin or USC/Virginia Tech early on in the regular season rather than Florida/FIU and Louisville/Middle Tennessee.
Vote here
Excellent write up. I’m intrigued most by the idea that your approach would demand accountability when voting in the AP poll. The flip side is that coaches could still tank their votes thereby allowing teams from pools B and C to enter pool A and hence, if you’re lucky, you may get a C,B and C o-o-c schedule rather than an A, B and C o-o-c schedule. The cynic in me screams that asst. coaches will still vote. However, if the voting has to be made public then you have the chance of greater integrity (and if this is already the case I apologize.)
Another component of this that I see as a possibility are rematches. Though it is true that a WVU may play a lesser schedule, it can’t be denied that in recent history they have shown up on the big stage (UGA an OU). How great would it be to see an early season matchup between teams that eventually meet again in a Bowl? I know the FSU’s of the world will bitch and moan about how unfair that is but as a season plays out, and as teams become better (to be optimistic) you could have situation where an ACC\SEC early season blow out becomes an intriguing Bowl game.
Lastly, the idea of incorporating your I-AA teams is a huge bonus to little programs. Not only does it give them a financial opportunity, but it gives players who, for whatever reason, may not have the grades or scouting stats to get to a D-1 school to play on a bigger stage. Sure they may get blown out, but if one kid gets noticed as a standout, what a great story.
Again, good work Patrick.
While an interesting proposition, it will never fly. Each school is going to operate as a separate entity because of one very simple reason – money.
If a school doesn’t have control over their scheduling, you may just as well let the NCAA control every aspect of each member’s athletic departments.
I’m opposed to big government and therefore, I view the NCAA just as I would any type of government oversight.
Ask yourself this question. How well does the government manage all of its programs?
Thanks but no thanks to your suggestion.
@2
Good point. Would an alternate solution therefore be to have the schools schedule their own o-o-c based on the formula? Just eliminate “big govt”.
I wrote an article several months ago along these lines, with regard to scheduling. The BCS has changed everything. I outlined why the BCS schools are scheduling the way they are and why they’re going to continue to do so.
I don’t post links to my stuff on other blogs but you can drop me a line at fjv4usn@gmail.com and I’ll send you the link.
Thanks
Well I think that why teams continue to schedule the way they have been is pretty obvious. The BCS (with last year serving as the exception) doesn’t allow for a team to lose more than once, if at all, in order to be considered for the national championship game. With conference play in conferences like the Big 12, SEC and Pac-10 getting stiffer every year, fewer and fewer teams are willing to risk a chance at a national championship by scheduling a tough out-of-conference game and risk an early-season loss before conference play begins.
Do I think there’s anyway college football would adopt a system like the one I proposed? No way but it’s a fun exercise to think about ways to tweak the system and make it better especially when the people who could affect change to the system simply will not.