PDA

View Full Version : Idea for Non Conference Games


Dan B.
01-10-2010, 05:35 AM
This is an off the top of my head topic. Before we continue I want to make it clear that I agree that a playoff would be the best solution but I don't think it is possible any time soon. Also as anyone who knows my stances in politics can attest, I am fascinated with the art of compromise. That out of the way here's my proposal:

The BCS should institute a rule where a BCS conference team would have to start backups for a certain portion of every non conference game against a non BCS conference opponent -- say one quarter. The penalty would be the disqualification of the game in question from consideration in BCS statistics. I'm open to discussion on how long backups should have to start, whether both teams or just the BCS qualifying team should have to do so when playing a scrub opponent, and whether other midmajor conferences qualify for the restriction -- maybe if the midmajor team qualified for a bowl the prior year there is no restriction on playing limits for the major team. For instance if UT played UH next year they could play their starters as much as they wanted, but not against UL Monroe. I'd definitely enact that rule if the "small" team was in a BCS game themselves -- TCU wouldn't prove anything if Texas were forced to pay their backups against the Frogs' starters.

I don't think this would hurt revenue at all. College football fans love watching their backups because they only get four years to watch these guys and they know within a year or two the backup will be the star. Spring scrimmages sell out all over the place. Plus the games are usually on Pay Per View or subscription cable anyway.

It would impact the Heisman in some cases, but frankly the players getting hurt would be playing on teams that scheduled cupcake opponents anyway -- sort of a built in strength of schedule penalty in their statistics. On the plus side of that if a middle of the road team in a major conference wanted to boost an individual player's statistics as well as their team's strength of schedule they would schedule more major teams from small conferences. Overall I think there wouldn't be more than a few minutes' worth of difference when comparing players and you could scale the playing time mandate to reduce or increase its effect. I don't think it would add up to even a full game cumulatively but I admit I haven't done any math on it. Some would also be mitigated by conference championship games where teams with players that may have missed playing time get an extra game to pad their stats. The middle of the road teams scheduling real opponents may also find that they have a battle ready team capable of tougher conference play and their own Heisman hopeful gets the extra time against legit opponents in addition to a potential conference championship berth.

Overall I would think that while you still probably wouldn't get a lot more of the huge schools scheduling games against Utah and BYU you might get a lot more games against decent opponents in major conferences as they try to pad their own stats. This would provide a better gauge of how good many of the teams they schedule really are IMO. You'd also have a lot more mutual opponents which I know the computer system uses.

You would also have a larger body of work when considering starters and schemes, which I think some coaches might like. There's probably a few good reasons they would hate it, but I can't think of any right now. It's basically in part a scaled down full price NFL preseason game in college for the coach and AD. Whether we like paying for preseason I kind of think coaches are ok with it. For all the inherent unfairness (again mitigated somewhat by the inherent shorter career of a collegiate athlete) in the NFL preseason games they are still preferable to non conference college games the way we play them IMO. Another plus for coaches is that they can stick with their scheme without being accused of running up the score if they keep their same game plan every down. That might hold a lot of appeal for some coaches who think they can plug and play anyone and get good results.

There would be an appeal for freshmen in that they would be guaranteed playing time at major schools, which I suppose upon reflection could be one possible flaw in that it would entice them to go to major schools and forego scholarships at smaller ones. Although it ain't like they are skipping out on the big schools as is and they would not exactly hurt for playing time at the small school either -- where they would likely play the whole game (or at least the lion's share of it). This also would give big schools an incentive to support it.

I realize this is just a lot of complicated BS that is going to be factored into a frigging vote which as I said I would prefer never occur. But seeing as how the Bowl system is so unnecessarily convoluted as is, I say what's one more layer?

This really is a spur of the moment idea for me and I'm curious what holes there are in it. It's great if everyone thinks it's flawless as is, but I'm not going to get defensive if anyone can shoot it down. I could easily have missed some obvious reason that it would never work. I'm curious: what do y'all think?:thinking:

kastofsna
01-11-2010, 10:37 AM
what?

i'm trying to figure out why this makes any sense at all. or how it could be enforced. and the many ways any team could easily find a way around it (what constitutes a "backup" vs a "starter"? a coach could just change the depth chart; also players get rotated in and out all the time; etc etc). also, why force a team to essentially player below their expected talent level for a game? you act like every BCS team is great and schedules cupcakes. not at all. you're possibly prohibiting teams from playing at their best against a team that could beat them because of this. why?

kinda silly.

BigBull17
01-11-2010, 10:48 AM
1A teams shouldn't be allowed to play 1AA or 2A teams. They should make thee BCS confrences play a schedule like the NFL. Say you play your SEC games, then play the Big 12. Maybe just the one that finished in the same place you did last year.

Dan B.
01-11-2010, 12:58 PM
what?

i'm trying to figure out why this makes any sense at all. or how it could be enforced. and the many ways any team could easily find a way around it (what constitutes a "backup" vs a "starter"? a coach could just change the depth chart; also players get rotated in and out all the time; etc etc). also, why force a team to essentially player below their expected talent level for a game? you act like every BCS team is great and schedules cupcakes. not at all. you're possibly prohibiting teams from playing at their best against a team that could beat them because of this. why?

kinda silly.

It wouldn't matter who was the starter. No one could play more than three quarters (or whatever) of game time whether they came off the bench or not. It could be enforced, as I said, by removing games where teams violated the rule from BCS consideration. And I'm not saying all BCS teams schedule cupcakes. This would give the ones that do an incentive not to. Also, by only enacting the rule for minor conference teams that failed to make a bowl game the prior year it's highly unlikely that the team they are playing could beat them because of it. If they can, stop scheduling bad teams and you won't have to play with a hand tied behind your back.

ChampionTexan
01-11-2010, 01:46 PM
One of the unintended consequences (I think) would be to put some big-time dents in some smaller schools athletic budgets.

If the ability to be a highly compensated patsy to the UT's, Alabama's and even A&M's of the world was eliminated by this plan, that lost revenue might be more than the would-be patsies could handle.

Or put another way:

"Why does Rice play Texas? Not because it is easy, but because it is lucrative as hell!?

Why Does Rice Play Texas? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-KbQTnIDbQ)

Dan B.
01-11-2010, 02:12 PM
One of the unintended consequences (I think) would be to put some big-time dents in some smaller schools athletic budgets.

If the ability to be a highly compensated patsy to the UT's, Alabama's and even A&M's of the world was eliminated by this plan, that lost revenue might be more than the would-be patsies could handle.

Or put another way:

"Why does Rice play Texas? Not because it is easy, but because it is lucrative as hell!?

Why Does Rice Play Texas? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-KbQTnIDbQ)

Very true. The reason that BSU is good enough that no one plays them is because those same schools played them for years. I'm not sure that the biggest schools would refuse to schedule weak opponents though. They have 85 blue chip recruits that need playing time and I suspect the revenue would be virtually identical. I can't imagine there are many people that would pay to watch UT vs Rice normally, but refuse to do so if Texas were playing freshmen part of the game. I suspect the biggest effect would be felt by the midrange schools, like A&M, or that big schools would drop to one of the joke games per season and get decent non conference opponents (whether from small conferences or other major ones) for the other games.

Just to clarify I'm not saying they have to put in the scrubs for the fourth quarter of the game. You can rotate guys out at each position etc.

ChampionTexan
01-11-2010, 02:54 PM
Very true. The reason that BSU is good enough that no one plays them is because those same schools played them for years. I'm not sure that the biggest schools would refuse to schedule weak opponents though. They have 85 blue chip recruits that need playing time and I suspect the revenue would be virtually identical. I can't imagine there are many people that would pay to watch UT vs Rice normally, but refuse to do so if Texas were playing freshmen part of the game. I suspect the biggest effect would be felt by the midrange schools, like A&M, or that big schools would drop to one of the joke games per season and get decent non conference opponents (whether from small conferences or other major ones) for the other games.

Just to clarify I'm not saying they have to put in the scrubs for the fourth quarter of the game. You can rotate guys out at each position etc.

This would also boost employment by requiring every BCS school to employ one additional coach - Director of Scrub Substitution.

It would likely become a cottage industry in and of itself - develop a formula to optimize the effetiveness of scrub deployment/minimize the amount of scrub damage sustained, and you'd become an extremely wealthy individual (perhaps the Major College equivalent of the NFL Capologists)

So, what happens if your starting LT is your backup LG, and your starting LG is your backup LT? If they switch for a quarter, does that comply? And if you run the "Wildcat" for 25% of the game with a RB taking a direct snap, and a QB split out at WR, does that qualify? If your inside D-Linemen (in a 4-3) swap positions for a quarter - what then? What if you run a nickel or a dime and have an extra DB or two - can you say the 5th or 6th DB were actually playing replacing the starters, and the starters were playing a Nickel/Dime back?

Sorry Dan, this is not one of your better ideas.

Edit: I forgot to mention the Director of Opposition Compliance (This would be the small school equivalent of the Director of Scrub Substitution). Lock him in a room with some tape after the game, and by the following Tuesday (Wednesday at the latest), they should either be in a position to pronounce the opposition 100% compliant, or determine they didn't comply, and lodge a protest with the NCAA, which would be acted upon swiftly and severely in the form of vengeance on the offending party.

Dan B.
01-11-2010, 03:11 PM
lol I didn't claim it was a good one. Thanks for the honesty though. And for implying I've had good ideas before.