FB Scheduling Debate

**CYdTracked** · 06-04-2007, 03:55 PM

So I heard something on the radio this morning where they were talking about how the Big 10 should try to re-work their FB schedules so that OSU and Michigan aren't paired together as 2 teams you wouldn't play against the same season. Makes sense, Iowa doesn't get to play either of them this year and everyone knows that most years those 2 teams are going to be tough so why not at least have to play 1 of them every year? If Iowa does well in the Big 10 you know the other teams that had 2 play those 2 teams will just say that Iowa had an easy schedule by not playing 2 of the best teams in the conference.

So this got me thinking, why don't they do that with Texas and Oklahoma in our south rotation which is basically the same problem? I'd rather play 1 of them every year and not both every 2 years for 2 years in a row. Why not trade one of them off for Baylor or something? Initially it would kind of suck because you'd play 1 of them 4 years in a row when they made the switch but from there on out you only play 1 of them each season. Would make the playing table more even I think where you can't acuse teams of having a much weaker schedule because they didn't play either of the 2 big powerhouse teams in the south.

**DaddyMac** · 06-04-2007, 04:05 PM

Problem would be that the south little 4 (OSU, Baylor, Tech and A&M) would probably scream foul, since they have to play both every year - so why shouldn't the north have to potentially contend with that problem? And in that, they'd be right. But I think the conference should shuffle the line up every few years. Aren't we the only north team that has to play Tex and OU in the same year? ANd it's been that way since the outset of the Big XII, right? Shouldn't somebody else feel the pain?

As an aside, I've heard a slightly different version of this Big 10 issue. But they wanted to remove the rivalry game from OSU & Mich, so you wouldn't have them always playing each other and having what happened this year, one knock the other out. And the Big 10 could theoreticaly have the two powerhouse teams finish undefeated. Of course they still dismiss the idea of divisions and a conf championship game.

Don't know if I heard that right, or understood it correctly, but sounds a little underhanded.

**theshadow** · 06-04-2007, 04:12 PM

Kansas also gets UT and OU in the same year, but always 1 home, 1 road -- never 2 home or 2 road.

The Big Ten can't have a championship until it has 12 teams in the league, according to the NCAA.

**BryceC** · 06-04-2007, 04:24 PM

The day the Big 12 changes the rules for Kansas and ISU will be the day hell freezes over.

**theshadow** · 06-04-2007, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by BryceC

The day the Big 12 changes the rules for Kansas and ISU will be the day hell freezes over.

Thing is, OU wasn't all that great when the Big 12 was formed. Texas was way better.

Records, 1994-98 (last two years Big Eight/SWC, first three years Big 12):
Oklahoma: 6-6, 5-5-1, 3-8, 4-8, 5-6
Texas: 8-4, 10-2-1, 8-5, 4-7, 9-3

**brianhos** · 06-04-2007, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by theshadow

Thing is, OU wasn't all that great when the Big 12 was formed. Texas was way better.

Records, 1994-98 (last two years Big Eight/SWC, first three years Big 12):
Oklahoma: 6-6, 5-5-1, 3-8, 4-8, 5-6
Texas: 8-4, 10-2-1, 8-5, 4-7, 9-3

Everyone forgets this, but when the big 12 was started it was KSU, CU, and Neb that were the powerhouses, and everyone complained the south was weak.

**ISUguy** · 06-04-2007, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by theshadow

Thing is, OU wasn't all that great when the Big 12 was formed. Texas was way better.

Records, 1994-98 (last two years Big Eight/SWC, first three years Big 12):
Oklahoma: 6-6, 5-5-1, 3-8, 4-8, 5-6
Texas: 8-4, 10-2-1, 8-5, 4-7, 9-3

Wow. Hard to believe those two teams were ever 4-8 and 4-7 in the same year.

**theshadow** · 06-04-2007, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by brianhos

Everyone forgets this, but when the big 12 was started it was KSU, CU, and Neb that were the powerhouses, and everyone complained the south was weak.

1996-2001: North 61, South 47
2002-2006: South 62, North 28
Championship Games: South 7, North 4 (South has won last 3)

2002 was the first year that the South had an advantage (11-7).

**keepngoal** · 06-04-2007, 06:52 PM

i have a solution (which I have brought up before) for our scheduling 'woes'. Schedule the games against South teams later in the season. Late October and definitely anytime in Nov. That will even things out a bit for anyone in the North division. Why do we (North) have to play most of our late season games against each other.

- keep.

**ia8manfan** · 06-04-2007, 06:59 PM

I think it is completely unfair to single out a team on a scheduling issue....they shouldn't shuffle tOSU and Michigan, or in our case UT and OU. Now, I think as a whole conference they should shuffle schedules, but don't do it because of powerhouse teams.

**hoosman** · 06-04-2007, 07:34 PM

I'm all for making the south teams play a few games up North in November. That would even things up. It might not be bad for ISU to head south during that month either. Our home attendance is not so good during November and the team and staff might like the warmer weather.

I also think that Pollard is right about revenue sharing. Teams on TV get a double benefit: increased revenue and increased recruiting exposure.

As for ISU's feast or famine schedule, couldn't we find a non-conference stand-in (Big East, PAC 10, SEC, ACC) on the years when we don't play Texas and Oklahoma?

**brianhos** · 06-04-2007, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by keepngoal

i have a solution (which I have brought up before) for our scheduling 'woes'. Schedule the games against South teams later in the season. Late October and definitely anytime in Nov. That will even things out a bit for anyone in the North division. Why do we (North) have to play most of our late season games against each other.

- keep.

Playing the late games in your division is good. Play the intra division games when they mean the most.

**DSEV377** · 06-04-2007, 09:10 PM

Wouldn't it be nice to have the top six teams and the bottom six teams( using the previous years record) play each other each year. Then just randomly select three others from the top six to mix in with the botom six. At least the games would be more closely matched. Who wants to watch blowouts except the fans of the team that is winning?

**keepngoal** · 06-04-2007, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by brianhos

Playing the late games in your division is good. Play the intra division games when they mean the most.

why not mix in a few South games in Oct or Nov? only two weeks out of 5 or 6.... seems it would meet your point and allow some weather conditions to play into the mix.

- keep.

**hoosman** · 06-05-2007, 04:03 AM

Originally Posted by brianhos

Playing the late games in your division is good. Play the intra division games when they mean the most.

If the intra-division excitement is a factor, then why is our attendance so weak in November?

Wouldn't it be better to take our annual nose-dive against the south later in the season? Then we would look better farther into the season. This might provide more mid-season TV possibilities and more mid-season ranking possibilities. Besides, it looks like the team is usually not very competitive against the North in the late season anyway. I recall a few late season chokes and let-downs when the north title was ours to claim.