B1G/SEC Challenge proposal (FB)

Submitted by Gr1mlock on

So Bielema laid this idea out there, replacing the SEC's annual FCS weekend with a 14 on 14 challenge, same as the B1G/ACC or Big 12/SEC challenges in basketball.   This is obviously pure theory and has no decision makers involved yet, but still curious to hear people's opinions.  I for one would love to see this, especially if they make it alternate home games like in basketball.  Helps every team, gives fans something interesting and new on the schedule, and ensures an extra quality game every year.  

 

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14163970/bret-bielema-ar…

rainingmaize

November 19th, 2015 at 1:01 AM ^

I have to defend Freeze's comment to some extent. Small schools do indeed rely on those blowout payouts in order to help balance the budget. By removing those games, those programs would face an even larger financial hole. It's not just the Furmans and the HBC's of the world, but also MAC, Sun Belt, CUSA schools as well.



But



That still doesn't explain why Alabama feels the need to schedule a Charleston Southern in the last two games of the season, nor any SEC team scheduling a cupcake right in the middle of the meat of the schedule. It's laughable that Freeze is trying to paint the SEC as the savior of small time college football when in reality Ole Miss is probably the dirtiest of all D1 programs. 

Humen

November 18th, 2015 at 5:19 PM ^

Wait, the SEC has only one FBS weekend? That's a terribly misleading statement of their extremely weak OOC schedule. Also, the SEC, outside of a couple exceptions, doesn't play P5 true road games (uncertain whether he advocated this). Why it could happen: $$$. Why it won't happen: the weird inertia that surrounds CFB and people in charge of things




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

charblue.

November 18th, 2015 at 6:04 PM ^

CBS proclaims the SEC as the best conference. And this is based on recent domination. But when I look at the coaching that has been at the forefront of the most dominant schools, they all come from the Midwest with roots in the MAC and Big Ten. So how do you account for this phenomenon?

Blarvey

November 19th, 2015 at 8:15 AM ^

Coaching is one thing, talent is another. Texas, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and to lesser degrees Mississippi and the Carolinas have a great deal more high school talent than their midwestern and northeastern counterparts. It's a matter of demographics and culture that most upper midwest schools just don't have.

The Mad Hatter

November 19th, 2015 at 9:09 AM ^

that most SEC schools will enroll players that can barely spell their own names.  

Listen to some post game player interviews at SEC schools.  Then compare and contrast that to the postgame interviews given by Michigan players.  Were it not for football, a lot of the kids playing in the SEC would not be in college.  Any college.

drzoidburg

November 19th, 2015 at 6:28 PM ^

as opposed to "we aint' here to play school" recruited by ohio st?

simple numbers dictates that a college that rejects 40,000 applicants a year will need to lower its standards to acquire any 4-5 star football players

now a "school" like LSU that filed bankruptcy and has 20% of its budget from the football team...probably doesn't have to lower its standards much

WolvinLA2

November 18th, 2015 at 7:55 PM ^

Actually, why this won't happen: $$$.  

At football rich schools, they make more money by having 2 home games  in 2 years against a tomato can than by having 1 game every 2 years against somebody good.  Most of the teams in question have very strong schedules as it is and tend to sell out those OOC games.  Plus, this would likely take the place the whatever is the hardest OOC game they already have, so all they would be doing is giving up a home game every other year.  

Also, this easy game is likely necessary for 1-2 teams per conference to make a bowl.  Like Auburn or Indiana this year.  If Auburn played somebody good and lost this year in place of Idaho, they miss a bowl.  And that costs the conference money.  It's in the conference's best interest to get as many teams bowl eligible as possible, which is why these 14 team leagues like the Big Ten and SEC aren't in a hurry to go to 9 conference games like the Pac-12 did, even though it's the best thing to do.

drzoidburg

November 19th, 2015 at 6:51 PM ^

Are you seriously denying the impact of $$$ in scheduling? Seriously? The entire reason for the 12th game was $ and despite excitement it generated at the time, schedules have gotten WORSE since then. I mean just do the math...

$65 x100,000 for a home game, plus luxury boxes, and a cut of concessions and parking, minus $300k payday to UNLV = $8 million roughly?

$80 tickets for a P5 opponent, minus $1 million payday to byu/oregon st, minus 2,000 empty seats = $8 million?

$80 tickets for P5 opponent alabama, divided by 2 cause home and home = $5 million?

Now the first two are acceptable so that's why those games are on the schedule. As for alabama, the real question is will be priority point "donations" for tickets and the tv deal offset the $3 million loss AND the risk of losing the game to a much better opponent?

The answer is there is room for 1 marquee OOC game a year before diminishing returns kicks in, due to limited primetime tv slots and limited fan wallets for priority points, so that's the most we've gotten since like 2003

MgoHacker

November 18th, 2015 at 5:21 PM ^

This needs to happen. This would help allow teams to prove themselves like Iowa this year or allow teams to show how bad they are msu this year. so we could get a better picture for the playoff rankings.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

drzoidburg

November 19th, 2015 at 6:54 PM ^

no, but on occasion they'd have to play alabama etc, so on those years we would know a lot more, just like next year they play Michigan

In the end, law of averages means every team in both conferences would have *some* legit opponents every year. That's just not the case right now

This is why if i were scheduling czar i would force every P5 team to play 4 games, one vs each conference, against P5 teams every year. Law of averages means they'd have 2-3 legit opponents more than now, and it'd be damn easy to pick a 4 team playoff

alum96

November 18th, 2015 at 5:22 PM ^

With only 3 non conf games go forward it reduces flexibility too much.  Would still like to have home and homes with the Texas, Oklahomas, UCLAs, etc.

Wouldnt mind it for 6 years or so however -  really a shame we never play LSU GA Auburn in home and homes.

Needs

November 18th, 2015 at 5:36 PM ^

The SEC's in-conference scheduling is really crazy.

They have 7 team divisions and 8 conference games with one fixed cross-over game. It both means teams very rarely play teams in the other division and makes for longterm competitive imbalance. It's surprising that the teams locked into a really difficult cross division game (particularly Tennessee with Alabama, but also Florida with LSU and vice versa) aren't pushing to expand the conference schedule to 9 games and do away with the FCS games.

drzoidburg

November 19th, 2015 at 6:57 PM ^

i hope you don't want notre dame back on the schedule then, because just like 1999-2014 it destroyed any variety in the schedule. Not that i find it a legit excuse to not play those teams still, but that's just reality. Even lloyd carr admitted as a coach "Is notre dame on the schedule?" when asked about other opponents

I am very much looking forward to texas/arkansas/oklahoma/washington/ucla, and very much dreading ND. Plus they were bastards when ending it last time

GoBlueTom

November 18th, 2015 at 5:28 PM ^

Michigan vs Florida at Jerry's World in 2017, then a home & home against Arkansas in 2018 & 2019. It would be fun to see but the SEC has to come up here as well.  LSU is traveling to play Wisconsin next year in Green Bay. 

Maize in Cincy

November 18th, 2015 at 5:51 PM ^

This is good in theory, especially at the top of the conference.  The problem would be at the bottom when you get matchups like Rutgers vs Kentucky and Illinois vs Vandy.  This would make it harder for the crappy schools to get bowl eligible and/or make some money.  They would be forced to give up more natural OOC rivalries that might draw some fan interest.

LSAClassOf2000

November 18th, 2015 at 5:56 PM ^

The Maryland-Vanderbilt game that would surely ensue would go down in history as the only game that ended in mass blindness being the result. "Do not look directly into this inside run....", they said. The crowd did not listen. They were warned, for the fine print on the tickets listed the appropriate protective gear. 

It is an interesting idea, in all seriousness. I would love to see an SEC team wonder why there was so much dandruff blowing around in a Big Ten stadium, only to hear, "No, no it isn't dandruff..."

goblue2017

November 18th, 2015 at 6:01 PM ^

When they expand the playoff to 8 teams I'll be all for this. Until then, I see little incentive to schedule tough match ups early season like we have against Florida in 2017, and like we had this year against Utah.

Chitown Kev

November 18th, 2015 at 6:14 PM ^

becaue at the time they played 9 conference games and the B10 played 8 conference games.

 

Still, I always though that was kind of an informal thing; the only Pac8/10/12 team that I can recall hasn't played Michigan in the regular season is USC (that might include the 2 Arizonas as well...and they weren't always members of the conference).