How do we get "good" non-conference games back in CFB?
Since the advent of the CFP (and somewhat the BCS before it, although it is essentially the same organization) we have all noted the influence on the quality of non-conference matchups within the community of "traditional power" programs (or the adventitious "P5" term that espn decided to force upon us). Specifically, it has reduced the incentive for teams to schedule any meaningful challenges for out of conference games since the risk/reward balance for CFP inclusion favors conference play... provided the team plays in a strong conference.
This CFP-induced trend has left the bowl games as the main source of quality non-conference matchups, yet that has become jeopardized by the newer trend of player opt-outs and perception marginalization (the "bowl games don't matter" crowd). We know (too well) how a game that looks fun and interesting on paper can be scuttled into a glorified scrimmage by one team losing a number of starters to this trend, making the bowl games even less interesting overall (despite being the most exciting non-conference pairings many of those teams will have that entire year).
So the question is this: what can or will be done (realistically) to restore having "good" non-conference games? We have noticed that some "power" programs are starting to announce limited quality matchups to their future schedules, which seems to be more to placate disgruntled ticket holders than anything else... yet it seems more of a token gesture that will not reverse the greater movements in favor of "cupcake" games for these programs. Can (or should) those matchups be saved? How should the treatment of regular season non-conference vs post season bowls differ going forward?
Just something to mull as we head into the end of cfb season yet again.
December 31st, 2020 at 8:25 AM ^
The key remains: expand the playoff field to at least 8 teams.
December 31st, 2020 at 9:01 AM ^
This, and conference champs get auto-bids. This would incentivize good non-conference games.
If you lose, no problem. Win the conference and you’re in.
if you win, you’ve got a better resume for a wildcard bid if you don’t win your conference.
December 31st, 2020 at 9:16 AM ^
This will help, especially since it will help sell season tickets for those teams that don't happen to have an interesting home slate (like that year that UM didnt have MSU or OSU at home), at a time when it is getting harder and harder to fill stadiums.
Also, brought up in this week's Mandel's mailbag on the Athletic, he raised the possibility of the NLI rules allowing for the bowl sponsor to pay specific players "appearance" fees pertaining to playing in the bowl. This won't help with the non-conference part of the season, but it should make bowl season more interesting with less opt-outs of star players. Last night's game could have been a whole lot different/exciting without the UF opt-outs
December 31st, 2020 at 9:32 AM ^
Absolutely. All 5 P5 Champions are in, and the highest ranked G5 team. Then add 2 wildcard teams. It will not punish a team for losing a quality out of conference game and rewards the G5 for a great season.
December 31st, 2020 at 12:37 PM ^
Yes. All conference champs should get in.
December 31st, 2020 at 12:38 PM ^
This wins the world wide webs
December 31st, 2020 at 6:27 PM ^
The only problem with your design is that it is too logical and it would be enjoyed by too many people. Therefore, the people in charge will never go for it
December 31st, 2020 at 9:12 AM ^
Or better yet 16 teams like all other NCAA divisions do
December 31st, 2020 at 10:50 AM ^
This all day. A team could have a couple early season bad (or good) losses and still get in. Sets up the potential for the "Cinderella" run that NCAA basketball tournament has banked on for years. As well, 16 team would more easily incorporate some of the bowl sites nationally.
Ratings would be astronomical.
December 31st, 2020 at 11:46 AM ^
If you have an 8 team playoff with P5 champ autobids, you’ve, in essence, created a 13 team playoff. That seems fine. 16 team, with autobids, seems unnecessary.
December 31st, 2020 at 9:17 AM ^
The question was how do you get good OOC games back. The biggest problem with expanding playoffs is the fact that only a few teams can compete with teams like Bama and Clemson. 1-8 and 2-7 games are likely to be blowouts. As the number of playoff teams go up, so does the likelihood of boring third and fourth quarters.
December 31st, 2020 at 11:01 AM ^
1-8 and 2-7 games are likely to be blowouts
There are blowouts in the basketball tournament every year and the Earth hasn't stopped spinning.
December 31st, 2020 at 11:08 AM ^
We shall see how things work over the next few days. Sometimes less is more.
December 31st, 2020 at 12:55 PM ^
If Alabama and Clemson have to play three top 10 teams in a row, they likely don't make it to the championship game with the same regularity.
Currently, they can scout their semi-final opponent for weeks and use their talent advantage to punish the opponent and get to the championship game. Put them in a three game in three week stretch and they don't have as much time to scout future opponents.
There's a reason why rivalry week in the SEC is preceded with an SEC v. Sun Belt tournament. It's also why Alabama plays Idle the week before the LSU game.
December 31st, 2020 at 5:40 PM ^
I'm OK with a few boring 2nd halfs. As it currently stands, most of the non-CFP games are boring.
December 31st, 2020 at 9:31 AM ^
No real sources on this one, but Michigan might be talking to Joe Moorehead about joining the staff... When I reached out to get more information, I was asked, "who told you about this"?
Cheers
December 31st, 2020 at 10:53 AM ^
Hasn't this been discussed for a few weeks on the "Edge of the Internet" and also by the MGoTwitterFollowStalkers?
Nice you are hearing this elsewhere; Moorhead would be a good pickup.
December 31st, 2020 at 11:30 AM ^
not entirely sure. I did see someone from the twitterStalker world, whom also associates himself with the guy we don't discuss (clown), saying that coach is bunkered down in Cali and not leaving.
Meanwhile, the truth being, Coach on his personal vacation with family in Cali is still grinding everyday on recruiting. Outworking the competition in hopes of getting: Rooks, and C. Wright,
While also spearheading the effort to add players through the transfer portal
and filling out his new staff.
Cheers
December 31st, 2020 at 1:06 PM ^
Any idea on dc search is it close being done?
December 31st, 2020 at 2:25 PM ^
An offensive staff that includes Joe Moorhead, Josh Gattis, and Ed Warinner would be a truly elite staff. Add the recruiting prowess of Jaybaugh and Sherrone Moore and you also have a recruiting powerhouse.
December 31st, 2020 at 9:59 AM ^
I’m not necessarily against expanding the playoff but there are certainly going to be some consequences of doing so.
The CFP had the unintended consequence of devaluing the other bowl games. If you expand that you could very well start devaluing the regular season, which has always been something that makes college football special.
If you start allowing 2-3 loss teams into an expanded playoff you could start seeing coaches sit their best players at the end of the regular season, which happens to be when most of the rivalry games take place. Then you have to fix that problem by moving rivalry games to the beginning of the season.
As a fan of a Power 5 team, I’m not all that excited to make those kind of trade offs just to make it harder for a Power 5 team to win a title, and easier for teams that I don’t care about to get in.
December 31st, 2020 at 11:09 AM ^
I used to follow this line of reasoning . . . until I realized that, once you've lost 1-2 games, the season is devalued. If you lose a couple of games in September, you are eliminated from the national title picture. The "Every game counts" line only is true as long as your team is undefeated.
If you expand the field, yes, it's possible that an undefeated team might rest some guys for the last game. But the upside is that you'd have far more teams with a chance of making the playoff, and thus a more meaningful month of November overall, instead of the current situation where most teams are just playing for pride.
December 31st, 2020 at 10:31 AM ^
Amen brother. FCS has had a 16 team playoff for decades and it works well.
December 31st, 2020 at 8:26 AM ^
In a normal, non-covid world the answer is easy IMO. If the bowl committee actually paid attention to strength of schedule (like they do in basketball) and not primarily the win/loss record (like they really do in football) you would see teams start to schedule tougher OOC games than they do now.
Why do you think MSU always plays a very tough pre-season schedule in basketball? Because Izzo figured out years ago that even if they lost some of those games they wouldnt hurt them come tournament selection time and if they won more than they lost they would really help.
Conversely Saban and other big time SEC coaches figured out playing a difficult opponent in the pre-conference portion of their schedule had way more downside than up. Win and you get bragging rights for a week, but lose and you might miss the opportunity for a national championship. So they schedule cupcakes because the current selection system values wins over anything else.
Change the football selection process to be more like basketball and you'll get your desired result sooner rather than later IMO. Wont happen overnight because of the lead time required in football scheduling but it will happen.
December 31st, 2020 at 8:40 AM ^
Saban almost always has a solid P5 non-conference opponent on the schedule. In the last decade, they’ve played Penn St, Michigan, Va Tech, WVU, Wisconsin, USC, Florida State, and Louisville. I don’t know many teams who have scheduled a more challenging list of opponents.
December 31st, 2020 at 8:54 AM ^
The thing with Alabama --- they've rather infamously avoided true road OOC games over the last decade.
Of all those games you listed, only Penn State was a home-and-home. The others were neutral site. And that Penn State home-and-home was in 2010/2011 (the State College game in 2011), so it has become dated.
December 31st, 2020 at 8:59 AM ^
I hear that but at the same time, they’re not scheduling all their games at Bryant-Denney either. It’s the mentality some CBB coaches have when scheduling neutral-site games. “The postseason will be played on a neutral field, so let’s get our team some experience with that.” Furthermore, do we think that if they played FSU or USC at home the outcome would be any different?
December 31st, 2020 at 8:54 AM ^
LSU/Bama/Auburn have played tough games out of conference. Florida has a built in rivalry with FSU so they are a little less reluctant to schedule another P5 in the OOC schedule, but even they have scheduled Miami & Michigan in the past few years. One of the biggest myths in college sports is that “Bama never schedules anyone!” They often schedule non-conference opposition, problem is they usually destroy them so we think much less of the opponent after the game.
December 31st, 2020 at 9:56 AM ^
Yep, it’s the committee. As long as they primarily rank by # of losses, the main incentive for teams is to avoid losses.
Also, the biggest factor in the erosion of schedules was when the NCAA allowed more I-AA games to count for bowl eligibility. This accelerated the race to the bottom.
December 31st, 2020 at 10:21 AM ^
Even if they did give strength of schedule an appropriate weight, it would never outweigh the negative weight of even one loss.
December 31st, 2020 at 8:27 AM ^
10-team playoff: all conference champions, no one else. Seeding is done by an objective SOS-based metric, like KRACH or RPI, with the top seeds getting byes.
- Reduces the gap between the P5 and G5 teams.
- Incentivizes strong non-conference opponents.
- Puts emphasis back on regular season and conference championships.
- Provides disincentive to large conferences (any new FBS conference would create a new playoff spot).
- Reduces emphasis on conference strength in recruiting.
December 31st, 2020 at 8:45 AM ^
I thought the out of conference matchups actually picked up during the CFP era. OSU/Oklahoma, Michigan/Florida, USC/Alabama, Oregon/Auburn & Wisconsin/LSU all happened during this time. The CFP allegedly was supposed to make these matchups more frequently because it gave an incentive to these teams to beat quality opponents out of conference to boost their resumé come selection time.
December 31st, 2020 at 8:46 AM ^
I've been saying for a few years, they need to divide the FBS into two tiers. The "upper" would be the Power 5, and the playoff is only available to teams who play 11+ games against Upper tier opponents. Lower tier programs are given more opportunity to move up if they wish.
December 31st, 2020 at 8:58 AM ^
Umm, yeah... This is what we have now!
December 31st, 2020 at 8:54 AM ^
Myself, I'm in favor of a 16 team playoff - if every other division of college football can do it, so can the FBS. But we know that's not going to happen, so look at incentivizing non-con games by scoring/grading/ranking them separately from conference results. So, essentially, you have your conference record, and your non-con record, and both get independently scored towards a playoff baseline.
I'm thinking about some arbitrary point system where opponents earn 'points' based on their record, their opponents records, offense/defense/overall rankings, etc. You play more, and/or harder non-con opponents, then your score is higher. Higher scores earn better playoff ranks/seeds.
Don't ask me details, I'm still on my first cup'o coffee and just thought of this. And I'm not a mathematician...
December 31st, 2020 at 9:03 AM ^
I’m looking at 2018-2022 non-conference schedules and I see a ton of really good matchups.
December 31st, 2020 at 9:05 AM ^
Put a non-conf game near the end of the season vs. the beginning?
- Powerhouse teams (SEC) may be less inclined to schedule East Western Coastal Dayton A&M if they know it's going to be scheduled during the playoff ranking portion of the season.
- Smaller schools (Cincinnati) can have a big non-conf game to bolster their schedule if they know it'll actually be seen by enough people to help their playoff standing.
As it is now, anything that happens in the first month in the season is all but forgotten by playoff time, so there's no need to risk anything against a legit opponent if you're a bigger team. And for the smaller teams that do actually schedule and win a big non-conf game early in the season, the playoff committee is clearly not weighing those wins by week 10.
December 31st, 2020 at 9:08 AM ^
This is actually a good out-of-the-box idea. Plays with the psychology of the playoff without making massive changes.
December 31st, 2020 at 9:12 AM ^
I think teams should be required to schedule as many in conference games as possible. Non conference games against cupcakes should be counted the same as a loss by the selection committee. Rewarding teams for playing cupcakes has made for way too many terrible match ups.
December 31st, 2020 at 9:24 AM ^
You're not going to. If you expand the playoffs, I still don't think it is going to make that big of a difference. The fact of the matter is the downsides to playing other "good-great" teams in non-con far outweigh the good. Sure, you can sell a few more tickets at a higher price, fan interest increases and of course, you can score a big win.
On the other hand, here's a list as best as I can come up with as to why it won't change:
- Conferences have more teams and strong depth than yesteryear
- Playoffs/ some bowl games are more interested in raw wins than conferences titles
- More games are played, thus more injuries. You can win the battle of a big non-con game but still lose the war with your star QB getting hurt
- Too many fanbases think their team is "this close!" to making the playoffs, therefore coaches are constantly under pressure to win every game.
- When teams don't make the playoffs (but were in the hunt), the fanbase throws a fit and just wants the season to end and the bowl game is perceived as meaningless. Some players feel the same way and for all intents and purposes, quit on their team
Expanding the playoffs might solve problems 1,2, 4 and 5. However, if you add another playoff game, the risk for injuries goes up, and I don't really see how you're going to solve the problem of number 3. Bo's first year in 1969 Michigan played 10 regular season games and 1 bowl game. Half of the regular season games they won were by more than 25 points, which was a completely insurmountable amount in that era.
Last year, with a 4 game playoff, LSU played 15 games - an 36% percent increase in games from what Michigan played in 1969. As of the date when they played their opponent, 7 of which were in the top 10 - credit to LSU, one of them was in the non-con. Is your average coach going to look at their conference / possible conference title game / possible playoff game(s) and conclude playing at least two games against teams in the top 4, probably another 2-3 against teams in the top 20 enough? I think the answer to that is yes, and that is before you add another playoff game/round.
The only way you're going to bring back "good" non-con games is to go back to 1969 - shorter seasons, more importance on conference titles, no conference championship game, etc. It's not happening.
December 31st, 2020 at 9:54 AM ^
This. The current situation is fucked. Conferences are too big and there are teams that don't belong in certain conferences that struggle every year and will continue to struggle because they're no longer playing teams they played for decades. Nebraska hasn't won the Big Ten, Miami has yet to win the ACC, Arkansas has never won the SEC and been there nearly 30 years, Mizzou doesn't belong in the SEC East and since Pinkell's players are gone they will continue to struggle there, and West Virginia doesn't belong in the Big XII.
Plus conferences being so big you're only playing certain teams a few times a decade, so what's the point of a conference then?
I really wish the playoff would just go away and we bring back the four major bowls plus national championship without the BCS.
December 31st, 2020 at 10:05 AM ^
LSU was a great team in 2019, no doubt. That isn’t to be confused with the carefully managed reputation that the SEC curates year to year and which is promoted aggressively by ESPN. 6 of their 7 “top 10” opponents were in the SEC, and being in the SEC itself is worth a significant bump in the rankings. In 2019, Florida (6-2 in conference), Bama (6-2) and Auburn (5-3) all finished in the top 15. Georgia (7-1) was probably a top 10 team, but I would argue that the other 3 teams regular season OOC was such that their only losses were to other SEC teams.
Florida (generationally weak Miami and FSU, UT Martin and (FCS) Towson)
Bama (Duke, New Mexico State,Southern Miss, and Western Carolina)
Auburn (Oregon*, Tulane, Kent State, Samford)
* - The best team of a bad lot, kudos to Auburn.
When the only teams you lose to are in your own conference, and the quality of said conference is constantly being inflated by the braying horns of ESPN, your value rises. Good OOC games level the playing field. I’m guessing the SEC has no interest in that.
December 31st, 2020 at 10:18 AM ^
Isn't that exactly the problem though? Media/fans think the quality of their conference has increased because the amount of teams has increased - that's not an SEC thing either, I hear frequently on this blog the BIG East is the 2nd best division in college football. If that's perceived as true, then we are right back to where we started. More teams in the conference means a larger geographical area which means a larger TV market. $$$$$
Colleges are not going to go back to smaller conferences and give up all that dough so someone like Michigan can schedule Bama in the non-con with the intent of 'leveling the playing field'.
December 31st, 2020 at 9:27 AM ^
This is why I decided 10-15 years ago to start adding great non-Michigan games to my fall football travel schedule. I've now been to games at the following stadiums, and counting:
Georgia
Arkansas
North Carolina
Florida v. Georgia (Jacksonville)
Oklahoma State
Indiana
MSU
Wisconsin
Iowa
Purdue
Northwestern
Cal
Stanford
Washington
Utah
USC
UCLA
Tennessee
LSU ~ 12 times
Texas A&M
Texas
Arizona State
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
December 31st, 2020 at 9:29 AM ^
I don't understand how there is so much parity in college basketball but football is dominated but the same 3 programs for the last 5 or 6 years?
The Fix:
I think you start by reducing the regular season to 10 games. Then you have an actual playoff with 16 teams. Conference champions automatically get in. Non p5 contenders would get a minimum of two teams in.
I'm just spitballing here but it would probably be easy as fuck to fix this if you could get rid of the National Corrupt Asshole Association and ESPN.
Thanks I'll hang up and listen
December 31st, 2020 at 9:47 AM ^
Because basketball is a game of high variability and randomness. You cannot physically beat on people, so there's not necessarily an advantage to having bigger and stronger players. Shooting is also highly variable and if you have one bad night in a 6 round tournament, your'e toast. Simply, it's a more random game with a more random tournament and that's going to make it hard for anyone to dominate.
December 31st, 2020 at 10:31 AM ^
Exactly correct.
Football is different than basketball. There is a reason that the NBA uses series, and not single elimination, in the playoffs. Same for baseball.
December 31st, 2020 at 6:16 PM ^
The greater reason there is more parity in basketball is because it requires less personnel/resources to be good. The minimum a team needs to be good is 5 good guys (not *great* even - just good when playing together). A good football team needs 50+.
Football requires more specialization on top of that - any good basketball player can play the 1-5 positions and be ok (if not good). A good QB or WR is not going to be an ok OL or DL (typically).
December 31st, 2020 at 9:38 AM ^
No national championship game. Old school.
December 31st, 2020 at 9:41 AM ^
I like it.