Non-Conference Schedule Toughest
Sporting News apparently says we have the toughest non-conference schedule in the Big Ten http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/bigtenblog/index.php?blogid=2237
On that note.... don't forget Bobbethon....we're still in second behind PSU http://www.bigtenicons.com/bobblethon/tap/
That list highlights how bad all of the non-conference schedules have become.
So true. It's a sad state of affairs when you can include Bowling Green and UMass and still have the toughest non-conf schedule. Having said that...look toward the bottom of the list...yikes! Indiana, you best get some wins there - Towson, Arkansas St, Western Kentucky and Akron??? Wow.
I'm surprised that tough-and-angry St. Dantonio is swimming near the bottom of the pit. Good luck with Florida Atlantic and Northern Colorado, lil bro.
Except at least IN can argue they need to do this to get bowl eligible. OSU (and a couple of the other teams) should be embarrassed to have those schedules.
I'm going to defend OSU here a little bit, but you have to admit they've scheduled some great out of conference games the last few years -- home and homes with Texas and USC, and now the 'Canes come to Columbus. That's one of the best of the early 2010 season, in my opinion.
Take a look at the Big 12's non-conference. Besides OU (FSU, Cinci, and Air Force) the rest of the conference is an absolute joke.
And it would be one thing if it were only the bottom dwellers in each BCS conference that did this, but it's the perennial top dogs too. It's a joke.
This list is somewhat hard to measure I think. For instance, Penn State has to play at Alabama this year. This is almost definitely a sure loss for any team in the Big Ten this year (maybe not OSU). However, there are 5 schools ranked above PSU in terms of strength of schedule. Assuming PSU trounces its cupcakes, that leaves them at 3-1 out of conference this year. However, I think its really quite easy to make a case for PSU going 4-0 against some of the schedules selected in the top-5. Therefore, does having more "quality-but-manageable" opponents really make the schedule tougher compared to having one virtually unbeatable opponent and 3 cupcakes?
Alabama is losing a number of starters on defense. As PSU is probably not going to be great itself I am skeptical of them winning, but I don't anticipate the Tide bringing the pain quite like they did last year.
Therefore, does having more "quality-but-manageable" opponents really make the schedule tougher compared to having one virtually unbeatable opponent and 3 cupcakes?
In short, yes. Two of our games are losable - a bad call here and there, a bad bounce here and there, and we are 2-2 out-of-conference. Only one of PSU's OOC games is losable. They will go 3-1, and they may get lucky (good bounces, calls that go their way) and go 4-0 OOC.
Don't think Iowa deserves to be that high. 3 cupcakes and Arizona is a tougher schedule than 3 cupcakes and USC or 3 cupcakes and Alabama? I mean it's Arizona. They got a few lucky breaks and managed to beat Oregon State and USC last year. They got exposed by Nebraska in the bowl game. I think AZ finds itself near the mid to 2/3 of the Pac-10 this year.
Indiana's non-conference schedule is embarrassing and Penn State's would be if they didn't play Alabama...overall non-conference schedules have become a joke for most, if not all teams, because teams are terrified of losing early and being out of the BCS hunt.
exactly. It's the fear of having an entire season rendered moot after the first week. If we want the "Big Time Schools" to quit scheduling baby seals in their OOC games then the BCS needs to either be changed drastically or gotten rid of completely.
It basically looks like we get the hardest because we have 2 games we could potentially lose where everyone else has 1 or 0. I am willing to bet if Ohio State was playing UConn it would not really be deemed as quite the match-up it is for us as far as strength of schedule goes. That being said, the more hyped up UConn gets the happier I'll be.
These schedules don't look all that different than they have in years past (I can't remember us ever playing more than two legit BCS teams recently). The only change is the addition of a 12 game which everyone has used to add another guaranteed win at home. Eliminate the money grab 12th game and the schedules look a lot better (but this is never going to happen).
The money grab. All the big dogs want a home and home, so it's tough get the deal done with the big schools, from what I understand. Choice A) get a meh team to come in and play for $500K or $750K and keep the rest of the 80,000 - 100,000 person gate or Choice B) Give up the huge gate and go on the road and play a big team who might beat you.
Sucks for fans, but it's a business ultimately (and sadly).
I think we just have to view it as an extra glorified scrimmage that gives us more football to watch and brings in more cash for the AD (that can be used for stuff like facility upgrades). Playing a third (or second for some teams) legit BCS team really isn't an option. The choice is play DSU/UMass or play no one and miss out on all that extra revenue to the athletic department.
on this. Despite the beat down of DSU last year, I know I watched that game more than once, and I may have taken a peak at a few series a third time. Extra Michigan football against tomato cans > a Saturday without M football.
Oh little brother, FAU and Northern Colorado in the same year? Trying real hard to be undefeated going into the Big Ten? That's fine, because you're gonna be downgraded to the bastard child of the Big Ten by the time you leave Ann Arbor.
Until the BCS stops rewarding teams for scheduling one "tough" game and three patsies, AD's with any intellect will continue to schedule that way. That is one of many reasons that I am in favor of a playoff where only conference champions and one or two non-affiliated teams are eligible. Teams would be a lot less afraid to schedule tough OOC games if the conference championships were the determining factor in having an opportunity to play for a true National Championship.
AAMOF, under a playoff system using conference championship games as the de facto first round, teams might find it to their advantage to schedule the best of the best at the beginning of the season to "toughen themselves up" for conference play.
Until the BCS stops rewarding teams for scheduling one "tough" game and three patsies, AD's with any intellect will continue to schedule that way. That is one of many reasons that I am in favor of a playoff where only conference champions and one or two non-affiliated teams are eligible. Teams would be a lot less afraid to schedule tough OOC games if the conference championships were the determining factor in having an opportunity to play for a true National Championship.
AAMOF, under a playoff system using conference championship games as the de facto first round, teams might find it to their advantage to schedule the best of the best at the beginning of the season to "toughen themselves up" for conference play.
I liked it better the first time you said it. Much more eloquent
I'd rather play against UConn and @ND than at Alabama. Bama would be a sure loss. I think it is unlikely that we are 0-2 after the first 2 games. I think there is a better chance of us being 2-0 than 0-2, with a pretty good chance of 1-1. PSU will pretty much definitely be 1-1.
two pretty good teams versus Bama on the road, too, but I would love to see Mich v. Bama when we turn the corner for good. In Tuscaloosa or AA.
A lot of our strength comes from the fact that we have two BCS teams on our OOC schedule, a rarity in these times. Even more rare if we go to 9 conference games.