How schedule set up impacts perception

**CYTV** · 11-20-2012, 02:06 PM

This is simple but so many people miss the significance of what the SEC has done with scheduling and what the Big 10 is about to do. The National, 11/19/12: Carousel. - Bring On The Cats

**alarson** · 11-20-2012, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by CYTV

This is simple but so many people miss the significance of what the SEC has done with scheduling and what the Big 10 is about to do. The National, 11/19/12: Carousel. - Bring On The Cats

Very well written. And yes, ive been saying this as well. So many people love the 9 game round robin without realizing its hurting our conference by lowering our rankings by ensuring extra losses conference-wide. We may get extra money from ESPN on the front side, but what financial damage is done when it causes us to miss title games and second BCS bowls?

And to add another thing, i think the way the SEC sets up its schedule so that instead of a 9th conference game, they have a noncon (usually a weak game) in november is great for them as well. They get to sit back and look dominating while everyone else is slugging it out, and ideally for them, teams in front of the SEC frontrunners are losing like this last week.

**Topshelf** · 11-20-2012, 02:47 PM

Very interesting... not sure anybody with power will read it...

**CycoCyclone** · 11-20-2012, 02:50 PM

Good read, I agree wholeheartedly. It does us no good to play round robin.

**DurangoCy** · 11-20-2012, 03:10 PM

You mean having 5-6 dog poop teams in your conference in addition to 6-7 good teams is a good idea? I think we need to try and recruit Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, and Illinois to the Big 12 pronto.

**Ficklone02** · 11-20-2012, 03:19 PM

So let me get this straight, each year's SEC schedule is set up so that the best cross divisional teams miss each other, giving the optimal opportunity for more one & two loss teams? I'm I reading this correctly?

**isutrevman** · 11-20-2012, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by Ficklone02

So let me get this straight, each year's SEC schedule is set up so that the best cross divisional teams miss each other, giving the optimal opportunity for more one & two loss teams? I'm I reading this correctly?

He's saying it is numerically harder for multiple Big 12 teams to have 10 wins than it is for SEC teams since they all play eachother. For a Big 12 team to go 9-0 in conference, it means all the other Big 12 teams have a loss. This is not the case in the SEC. Playing a round robin schedule guarantees the records of the teams will be spread out. In conferences where they don't play everybody, there will be 4-6 teams with really good records and 4-6 teams with really bad records. Everyone looks at the 4-6 SEC teams with good records and think they are a great conference and the Big 12 only has 2-3 teams with "good" records. Nevermind the fact that the Big 12 plays one more conference game than everyone else. If the Big 12 played 4 non-conference games and only 8 conference games, everyone in the conference could theoretically get one more win and have one less loss. This would make the end of the year records look a lot better (like the SEC).

**CyAggie** · 11-20-2012, 03:43 PM

Damm, he is brilliant, almost genetic!

**cyclones500** · 11-20-2012, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by alarson

And to add another thing, i think the way the SEC sets up its schedule so that instead of a 9th conference game, they have a noncon (usually a weak game) in november is great for them as well. They get to sit back and look dominating while everyone else is slugging it out, and ideally for them, teams in front of the SEC frontrunners are losing like this last week.

A little to the side of the topic, but I was curious why so many SEC teams had those FCS games so late in the season — it couldn't be just coincidence, because it was multiple teams (and most of them are the current power teams).

Theory: BCS has tended to (unfairly) favor 1-loss teams that lose early in the season, rather than late. Load up on conference games early, take your chances you'll still be in the mix, have a "bye" week down the stretch, hope others falter.

**isutrevman** · 11-20-2012, 04:24 PM

Not to mention having an easy game that doesn't take as much preparation in the middle of the schedule. Having to prepare for 9 straight big 12 games is brutal, especially when 3-4 in a row might be ranked. How much easier would it have been to have played an FCS team last week instead of Texas? Or maybe the week before instead of Oklahoma? Having to play good teams week after week finally caught up to Kstate.

**cyclones500** · 11-20-2012, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by CYTV

This is simple but so many people miss the significance of what the SEC has done with scheduling and what the Big 10 is about to do. The National, 11/19/12: Carousel. - Bring On The Cats

The year-to-year perception with rankings could almost get me aboard the expansion/divisional bandwagon (not in principle, but reality).

It still makes me think more about the flaws in the system itself.

**MNclone** · 11-20-2012, 05:16 PM

I think this article may have changed my opinion about expansion. I previously was in the stay the course camp. Nevermore.

**cyhiphopp** · 11-20-2012, 05:19 PM

It's been proven that it's better for a contending team to lose early than lose late. Having a cupcake at the end of the season is one less opportunity for a late season loss. It also loads the beginning of the season with more conference games which bring in more money.

If say Oregon had lost to Stanford the second game of the season, they would have the whole season to dominate teams and get back in the top 2. As it stands now, they might not make it back to the top with a late season loss.

**Cyrok** · 11-20-2012, 05:33 PM

Another benefit of the late-season FCS game is that theoretically you only need to play your starters for 1/2 of the game and you could get by with giving extra rest to someone with a mild injury and not play them at all.

**Ummy** · 11-23-2012, 12:09 AM

I LOVE that every team in the big 12 plays every team, but I hate what it does to the perception of big 12 teams vs other conferences because of the w-l records. We tend to end up with a handful of 6-6 or 7-5 teams that are much better than they look on paper. The parity in the Big 12 is very strong, especially this year, and you just don't see that in other conferences. Yet say we managed a season so tight that every game was a tossup and every team either ended up 5-4 or 4-5 in the conference, it wouldn't be looked at as 10 good and competitive teams, but 10 mediocre teams of 8-4 or 7-5.

The current structure makes for some fun games to watch, but definitely leaves us underrated as a conference.