Nonconference scheduling - broken down (almost)

Could you make the case that money games aren't as valuable to Pac-10 schools because (a) their stadiums aren't as big, on average, and (b) the fan base isn't as delirious and won't show up to a game against Directional State? I'm not saying you could or couldn't, just wondering if perhaps the financial implications are more pressing for schools that are, say, paying their head coach $4M a year.

Put another way, I think your list can be summarized as: 1 1-for-1, 1 2-for-1, 1 no-return. So again: Which of the three should that 12th game represent?

(If you wanted to get real philosophical, you could say that those games against Directional State help fund programs like women's basketball, women's soccer and equestrian teams, which are legal mandates under Title IX, mandates that are becoming harder and harder to satisfy as female enrollment continues to rise. At Georgia, for example, somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 percent of the student body is female.)

 

In a 10-team league, the 12th game should be a league game for the simple reason that it can't have a championship game, but it can play every other team. It should be that way for 11 schools/9-league games too, but that will never happen.
Or maybe, it's that the Pac-10 understands the actual spirit of the game and feels a little responsibility for doing things right.

 

Not saying they should. As a fan, I hate it. I'd love to see them play games against teams that matter, for the simple fact it looks better on a resume at the end of a season like this. Had Auburn finished with one or two losses this year, wins over Kansas State and South Florida would have looked much better than LSU's conquests of Louisiana Tech and Middle Tennessee.
My point was, there is a logic behind some of these decisions to play non-BCS schools. Whether it's trying to keep money in the state, or just scheduling based on where these programs are at in life.
On the list of "most non-BCS opponents", I'd say seven of them (Oregon State, Georgia and Auburn being the exceptions) could be classified as "down" for the last five years. Those schools need to be scheduling some weaker teams.

 

More from tellshowbcs:

http://tellshowbcs.com/teams/conf.html

Ranking is overall conference rank.
Record is conference's record against BCS conference opponents
Number after record is strength of schedule ranking

1 Southeastern 7-7 (1)
2 Atlantic Coast 9-10 (4)
3 Big East 7-8 (5)
4 Pacific Ten 5-3 (2)
5 Big Twelve 5-6 (3)
6 Big Ten 5-4 (6)
7 Mountain West 7-9
8 Western Athletic 1-15
9 Conference USA 2-23
10 Mid American 5-35
11 Sun Belt 3-23

 

Did you put all this together yourself? must've taken a shitload of time if you did. But it is interesting and useful info. It's about the most objective factual reference point i've seen when the conference fanboys start arguing about non-conference schedules. Good stuff.

 

I think it took about 2 or 2.5 hours, espn.com, a pen and sticky notes. And when I did the math the first time, I goofed team avg./year calculation. Fortunately I re-computed that and fixed it before anyone noticed.

 

Nice work. I had no idea the Big 12 were such wussies.

 

I knew going in the SEC was bad with I-AA scheduling, but had no idea about B12.

 

For some reason, I'm reminded of a quote from Benjamin Disraeli -- 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'
I'm not discounting the original poster, but some of the responses seem to fit that quote perfectly.

 

Funny how there wasn't this much hue and cry over the Mo Valley's cupcake scheduling, which is done specifically to inflate their RPI and thus get more love come NCAA tournament selection time.

And any BCS team that schedules four tough non-conerence opponents is a) suicidal or b) the cupcake.

 

Actually, the quote is more closely traced back to Lord Courtney. And I agree with you.

 

ROFL.