The Case Against a Ninth Conference Game
In an Unverified Voracity last week, Brian made the case for adding a ninth conference game to the Big Ten schedule, and indicated that a number of schools (including Michigan, apparently) are leaning in favor of it.
A few purported advantages are cited. First, schools find they are having trouble selling tickets to non-conference games against no-name opponents. Second, it reduces the need for protected cross-division rivalry games. And third, it reduces the advantage of any scheduling disparities.
Although not mentioned by Brian, another factor is that it keeps more revenue in the league. Every time a Big Ten team visits a non-Big Ten stadium, the conference does not get the benefit of television or gate revenue from that game.
These advantages seem to me over-stated. If games against low-quality opponents don't sell, don't schedule them! Nothing prevents the Big Ten from adopting a conference-wide policy limiting or eliminating games against mid-major, FCS, and Division II opponents.
Protected cross-division rivalry games are not needed, because the current Big Ten scheduling formula protects only two games per school. In a six-team division, you'd have five rivals you're guaranteed to face every year. If the Big Ten can manage with just two protected rivalries per team, as it has done, surely it can manage with five.
I do agree that a nine-game schedule reduces—though it does not eliminate—the possibility of a team winning its division without having faced one of the major powers in the other division. But it introduces disparity of a different kind, since teams would play an unequal number of home and road games.
There are other significant disadvantages to a ninth conference game. Mediocre programs rely on weak non-conference schedules to reach bowl eligibility. Whatever you may think of the value of a bowl game featuring two 6-6 teams, the fact is that such games exist, somebody is invited to play in them, and the payout is shared by the whole conference.
Replace a patsy with credible opposition, and the Big Ten can probably count on some teams not making a bowl, that otherwise would have. This, in turn, would increase the pressure on athletic directors to avoid scheduling serious non-conference opponents, since there would now be only three games under their control, instead of four.
Bear in mind that about half the conference has an annual rivalry with a non-Big Ten BCS-level opponent. Michigan, Michigan State, and Purdue all play Notre Dame; Iowa plays Iowa State; Illinois plays Missouri. It's too soon to tell which, if any, of its rivalry games Nebraska will choose to retain, but chances are there will be at least one.
As a practical matter, then, teams like Michigan would be down to just two discretionary games per year. Over the long term, that's less exciting for fans, as you lose the opportunity to see unfamiliar opponents coming into Michigan Stadium. With ten games a year locked in against BCS-level opposition, Michigan fans might never see a serious non-conference opponent again, aside from Notre Dame.
From a strictly parochial standpoint,when Michigan doesn't schedule home-and-home series against better opponents, it can schedule one-and-dones that don't demand a return game, and play a total of eight games at home to four on the road. The Wolverines had that advantage last year, and will again in 2011. That's harder to do when you're locked into nine conference games.
Incidentally, a number of Big Ten teams already have a full four-game slate of non-conference games scheduled in 2011. I doubt that schools will want to pay cancellation fees, so 2012 is probably the earliest this could be done, if it is done at all.
College football scheduling has become a farce, because the existing system does not sufficiently reward a tough schedule. The rankings penalty for playing a highly-ranked opponent, and losing, is far worse than the penalty for playing Delaware State, and winning. Rankings value wins (no matter against whom) far more than they credit excellence in defeat. This is a problem the Big Ten can't solve on its own.
But I strongly suspect that if the Big Ten goes to a nine-game conference schedule, it will simply increase the incentive for athletic directors to schedule meaningless games early in the season. In the aggregate, Big Ten schedules would become a lot more boring. That's not what we need.
That's harder to do when you're locked into nine conference games.
Ask Cal about that and their scheduling of Minnesota, Maryland, Colorado (as pointless as that may be now), Ohio State, and Northwestern over the last +/- 5 years. Or USC with Virginia, Minnesota, Syracuse, Boston College, Ohio State, on top of scheduling Notre Dame every year. Or Oregon scheduling Boise State, Tennessee, Purdue, Utah, Michigan, and Kansas State. Or Arizona State scheduling Mizzou, Illinois, Georgia, Wisconsin, LSU, Colorado, and Northwestern.
Yes, 9 game conference schedules vastly limit your ability to bring in one or more teams into your schedule. The PAC10 knows all about that.
For full disclosure, I'm for 9 games as I'd rather limit the options on scheduling cupcakes. Michigan doesn't go out of it's way to schedule past Notre Dame in the recent few years. While it's looking like they may beef up the schedule (rumors of 2012-2016 to replace ND with someone... blah, replace), it's been all about the benjamins and 8 home games.
As far as the competitive disadvantage of having uneven numbers of home games, I'm not wholly against it. It's not a bad argument, but it's not something I think is overwhelming.
Soooooo you are telling me that I will one day long for the excitement of a Bowling Green and UMass?
Non-conference schedules would get worse. If you don’t like them now, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
Simply put, the rationale for scheduling the likes of Bowling Green, UMass, and Delaware State, only goes up when your non-conference schedule is cut from four games to three, one of which is Notre Dame.
The same logic that is driving teams to schedule FCS opponents will still apply, so it seems more likely one of the higher quality games will get dropped before the FCS games.
Is all of those Big Ten teams playing Nebraska every year.
So the ninth game is a big name opponent, it's Nebraska, that's why we added them to the conference, their TV Viewing Money suction power.
2009 - Western, Eastern, Delaware State, ND
2008 - Utah, Miami of Ohio, Toledo, ND
2007 - Appalachian State, Eastern, OREGON, ND
2006 - Vanderbilt, Central, Ball State, ND
2005 - Northern Illinois, Eastern, ND (last year of the 11 game season, i.e. 2 cream puffs and ND)
Ok, I don't have time to go on, but as fas as I can tell in four years we only once traded a cream puff for a true contender. Now we not only always have Nebraska eliminating a cream puff, but the TV money all stays in conference.
I'm sure you can search for the link to the diary on attempting to show statistically the value of playing at home, but from what I can tell playing at home is more about sleeping in your own bed and the ticket revenue to the University than it is winning or losing games.
The only real question is whether Michigan and Ohio State are in the same division or not.
And I say keep them split. Michigan has Nebraska as the new "in division" rival for the West Division, and Ohio State keeps Penn State in the East Division. Add all the I's to the East Plus Purdue, and the rest are in the West.
Hell Northwestern has West in their name, and Michigan has West in their fight song.
Nebraska plays Oklahoma every year, and Michigan plays ND every year.
Oh no what if we play Ohio State twice?!? well then there's two games I'm really going to watch, since beating them twice has to be X squared better than beating them once. And neither can lose to the other twice in one year. That's WIN-WIN my friend!
And even better, the BCS rankings can't vote it to NOT happen. So everyone in the SEC has too watch it too.
Hell Northwestern has West in their name, and Michigan has West in their fight song.
Stop the presses. No matter Michigan's divisional alignment, it MUST be the West Division, even if it's in the East.
Michigan should just be sure to schedule its road game against a tough OOC opponent (in a home-and-away series) during the year in which there are five conference home games, and not vice-versa.
I'm all for going to 9 Conference games. The scheduling gets worse year on year, only allowing 3 chances to play a cupcake is better then the current 4. It'll make for a more intimate league as well.
Sparty & the Buckeyes are not protected, nor are Penn State & Michigan.
I think that he meant within the group. Not all are protected rivals, but each has a protected rivalry or two in the group.
Penn State’s “protected rivalries” against Michigan State and Ohio State are of very recent origin. They were more-or-less invented when the Nittany Lions joined the Big Ten.
I'm not sure what your point is considering that wasn't in my specific example at all. Are you saying that the OSU/PSU rivalry means nothing because it's only been around for 15 years? Or are you saying that we can just make up new rivalries to replace the current ones and in 5 years no one will remember that they once and a great rivalry forming? Those protected rivalries might not have meant something 15 years ago, but at least one of them does now.
Everyone has a slightly different definition of "protected rivalry"
Michigan doesn't play Penn State every year, so I don't consider that a protected rivalry.
Michigan doesn't play Minnesota every year, despite trading a painted chunk of clay of questionable origin longer than any one else has fought over any other low valuable object of questionable origin.
I think MSU and OSU are the only two games that have always been on the schedule during the TV (i.e. Modern or Bo) Era. Maybe Wisconsin.
One of those is solved by division structure, one is solved by scheduling. Playing 4 of 6 outside your division makes it pretty easy to solve at least one by scheduling.
I completely expect to end up in the West Division with Minnesota and the Cheese Heads anyway, so it's easy to protect the only one that needs protecting.
The series was on hold for a couple of years in the early nineties when I was living in Madison.
This is a bit misleading. The money issue is that the powerhouse teams created a system where they can "buy" no return games and they are now frustrated because the price keeps going up. But when you figure in the ticket sales and TV revenues from those games, the B10 teams still come out ahead or they wouldn't be doing it. No one is forcing B10 teams to buy no return games. If those games ever do become so expensive that they no longer make sense, the B10 teams can go back to scheduling standard home and away series against higher quality FBS teams.
If you compare a B10 schedule that has a 9th conference game (a home and away series, two games over two years) to a B10 schedule that has 8 conference games and a fourth non-conference game against a quality (even BCS) opponent, it is not so clear which is financially superior. For example, if MI plays MN in a 2-year home and away series, the B10 gets TV revenue for two games and MI and MN each get one home game with ticket sales, concessions, etc. Alternatively, if MI plays a home and away series against Georgia and MN plays a home and away series against USC (I believe they have one starting this year), the B10 gets the TV revenue for the two B10 home games and MI and MN each get one home game over the two year period. Whether one scenario works out significantly better than the other in a specific instance depends on who each B10 team would play in a 9th conference game versus a 4th non-conference game, but it is hard to argue that one is clearly superior to the other in all cases or even over a large number of games.
I'm for the 9 game schedule and I'm also playing ND 2 yrs on and 2 yrs off. It would be nice to schedule some SEC teams and who knows it might help with recruiting.
Another advantage would be you would still be a strong contender for the National Championship with a loss.
but if ND wants to stay independent I would like all Big 10 teams to stop scheduling them. I couldn't care less if we play them or not.
My guess would be that with 9 games in the Big 10 all OOC's would be cupcakes to keep the home games at 7 and 8 games as it is now.
The only way to keep teams from scheduling meaningless non-conference games is to stop penalizing them for scheduling tough ones. Until there is a playoff that combines major conference champions with a couple of wild-card teams that don't play in the major conferences, there is really no reason for an AD who thinks his team has a chance to make the MNC game to schedule risky non-conference games.
Why schedule a game with the potential to deprive you of a MNC berth when you can schedule an instate team from a minor conference?
I'd argue that removing the 1 FCS exemption from bowl eligibility would also be helpful. As of now, you can count 1 FCS team toward your 6 wins for a bowl. Teams like the Kansas/K-State/Texas Techs of the world schedule 2 FCS teams some years. That's a sin worse than scheduling the MAC.
I'd settle with just removing the FCS exemption as a baby step.
... is a great idea. And if the NCAA does not want to do it, the B10 could always do it on its own. In contrast, while going to 9 in-conference games might cut down slightly on FCS games, teams still will be free to schedule them as one of the three non-conference games that will remain.
I don't think that's going to happen because, correct me if I'm wrong, but the FCS exemption came about when the then Div I-AA schools said that being called "I-AA" was detrimental to their schools and thus we ended up with FBS and FCS - part of that entire negotiation was the FCS arguing FOR the FCS vs FBS game and allowing it to count as some kind of way to get FCS schools recognition and to help right the wrong of being called "I-AA" for all these years.
The only incentive the AD's have right now is ticket sales and apparently that is not enough. It is easier to sell tickets (and season ticket packages) if you have games people actually want to watch. Somehow the B10 needs to similarly internalize the value to everyone in the conference of higher TV ratings. As it is now, the lower ratings of games against FCS teams are spread over the entire conference, so it is unrealistic to expect AD's to regularly schedule top BCS teams instead of FCS teams based on higher TV ratings. But, the conference suffers as a result. I do not know exactly how to do it, but until the B10 can internalize the benefit of higher TV ratings as an incentive for scheduling by individual teams, the incentives will continue to be heavily tipped in favor of non-return games (especially for the powerhouse teams with the largest stadiums).
Would be if the AD's got together and convinced another AD of a high profile football school to come and join the Big Ten.
That just might bring in the classier season ticket package, as well as bring in TV ratings and encapsulate a huge chunk of brand new loyal fans watching their team play all the other teams in the new conference.
You know, this just might catch on!
as my friends who drink Guinness say, Brilliant!
once we get a better team on the field then we will line teams up for annual ass whippings. We can do our around the country tour. Kickin ass and takin names later.
I have read Brian's post and this post and have come away with the obvious conclusion: the answer depends on what teams do with the fourth non-conference game.
If, like Michigan has done in the not so distant past, teams use the fourth game to schedule quality opponents such as Utah or Oregon (or even this year, a top 25 UConn), as a season ticketholder and fan I would rather keep that quality non-conference game on the schedule than play a 9th in-conference game. As it is, there is insufficient cross-conference play where the top teams actually go head-to-head. Moreover, if the B10 divisions are arranged in a way to protect all of the major key match-ups and rivalries, the extra in-conference game is unlikely to be all that compelling. On the other hand, if a fourth non-conference game is simply viewed by AD's as a scheduling hassle and their primary goal in filling the slot will be to find the cheapest non-return game possible (i.e. Delaware State), then a 9th conference game starts to make more sense.
One thing that is important to understand, however, is that different teams within the B10 will have very different persepectives on this issue. For example, a team like Michigan will find it easier and more profitable to schedule a fourth non-conference game than will a non-football powerhouse like Indiana. No matter how uninspiring and unmarketable we think Michigan v. Delaware State is, imagine how much worse it would be as Indiana v. Delaware State. Additionally, some teams in the B10 regularly rely on 2-3 easy non-conference wins to become bowl-eligible each year. Michigan has had a taste of this recently. Although Michigan will soon be back to where we will not need that extra baby seal game to reach bowl-eligibility, the same is not true of everyone in the conference (e.g. Indiana). This is "business as usual" for those teams and it has financial implications for the conference as well as implications for recruiting and program credibility for those non-powerhouse teams. If we expect the Indiana's and Minnesota's and Northestern's to continue to invest in coaches and facilities and lure quality recruits so that the overall level of play in the conference is the highest possible, then it is counterproductive to take away those teams' flexibility to schedule an extra cupcake if that is what makes the most overall sense for their situation.
A couple of final points. First, a 9th in-conference game still will not result in a true round robin where everyone plays everyone. It is simply a question of whether there will be two or three teams in the other division that each team will not get to play each year. The conference championship game will still be needed to select an overall winner. Second, if the B10 stays at 8 conference games and some teams continue to find scheduling a fourth non-conference game a hassle or financially detrimental, the B10 should give them the flexibility to schedule each other and treat it as a non-conference game. So, for example, if Purdue is not scheduled to play Illinois in a given year, they should have the flexibility to add that game and treat it as a non-conference game if that makes the most sense for them. And, in the same year, Michigan can instead schedule a team like Oregon or Georgia or UCLA if that makes the most sense for us.
As it presently stands, there actually isn't any rule against it. In fact, Michigan and Minnesota were at one point trying to line up exactly such an arrangement for the 2009-2010 seasons -- we would have been their home opener at their new stadium last year, and then they'd be our home opener in the re-dedicated Big House this year. In the end, they weren't able to work that out, but the reason they couldn't had more to do with inflexibility in the rest of the schedule (our game against Notre Dame that year was the same day Minnesota wanted to have their opener) than with financial concerns.
I believe were already on the schedule before the 12 game regular season became official. I know Oregon was because it was the return game for UM going to Oregon in 2003. Oregon was supposed to come to the big house in either '04, '05 or '06 but UM rescheduled it to '07.
App St. was the last minute addition to the schedule for the 2007 season. Pretty sure the other 1-AA teams UM has played the last few years were last minute additions (less then a year before the season began) that Martin used to fill out the 12 game schedule.
Michigan fans might never see a serious non-conference opponent again, aside from Notre Dame
My favorite non-conference game is the one we go to at the end of the year, where we play for a bowl win. Out of those, my favorite is the one where we play someone for the National Championship.
The 12-game regular-season schedule itself only began in 2002. Playing three non-conference games was the norm before that.
2006 was the year a 12 game regular season became the norm. A couple of those years in the early part of the decade, teams had 12 game regular seasons because of some weird rule that had to do due with the number of saturdays in the fall and when the season began. UM went 9-2 in the regular season in 2004 and 7-4 in 2005.
Does it make more sense to give the title in a division simply to the team with the best overall conference record, or ought the intra-divisional games be the only ones that matter? Assuming the conference splits into divisions (which, at 12 teams, I think they have to, right?), I would prefer the first method, but only because I'm envisioning the ACC's 5-3/4-4 conference championship games... Giving non-division conference games more weight would guard against these statistically kinds of outcomes by making the game pool bigger. But, then again, if you beat the teams you're directly competing against, I feel like that should be a reward, also. Maybe first tie-breaker in that case? I just want to hear what you guys think.
About the 9 versus 8 game conference schedule, I would stick with 8. It allows for more flexibility I think, and it would be an easier place to start off. Or maybe stagger it so that half of the teams play an extra non-divisional conference game, switching off years? That could be interesting.
Comments