Crazy SMF college football scheduling idea

[Sean Miller Fan]

With most conferences going to a 9 game schedule, it means less opportunities for non-con rivalry games. Well, I have a solution for that for the good of college football:

An exempt 13th game earmarked for either an in-state, border state, or historical rivalry. Basically, you get a 13th game if you schedule a home and home with a "rival."

The NCAA should come up with a list of rivalries and then inform the schools they get an exemption to play. Examples would be:

Pitt/PSU
Pitt/WVU
WVU/Marshall
WVU/Md
WVU/VT
MD/Uva
FSU UF
Miami UF
KU Mizzou
Texas Texas A&M
Neb OU
etc

 

[Pghfan]

All P5 s need to go to a 9 game conference schedule. NCAA needs to change rules in counting FCS games toward bowl eligibility, they won't but they should.

 

[OriginalEther]

Better idea is

1. Add an exhibition game. This can be against anyone. Doesn't count in the standings. Serves as a de facto 7th home game for most places.
2. No I-AA teams in the 12 game regular season.
3. All series are home and away. If you want to play eastern Michigan, you got to also go to Ysplanti. None of this home only or this neutral site crap.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Better idea is

1. Add an exhibition game. This can be against anyone. Doesn't count in the standings. Serves as a de facto 7th home game for most places.
2. No I-AA teams in the 12 game regular season.
3. All series are home and away. If you want to play eastern Michigan, you got to also go to Ysplanti. None of this home only or this neutral site crap.

Im ok with that stuff. If they eliminate the 1AA games, you'll just get more MAC and Sun Belt games in their place.

 

[OriginalEther]

Im ok with that stuff. If they eliminate the 1AA games, you'll just get more MAC and Sun Belt games in their place.

Perhaps though that is a more legit matchup than a IAA school.

But if you add rule number 3, that should cut down those numbers. Do you think an Alabama wants to travel to a Sun Belt school?

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Better idea is

1. Add an exhibition game. This can be against anyone. Doesn't count in the standings. Serves as a de facto 7th home game for most places.
2. No I-AA teams in the 12 game regular season.
3. All series are home and away. If you want to play eastern Michigan, you got to also go to Ysplanti. None of this home only or this neutral site crap.

Let's assume that all sounds wonderful. What makes anyone think that the colleges would ever vote for it? If Alabama doesn't want to make any road trips to Ypsilanti then why would Alabama vote to enact a rule like that? Or Auburn? Or Ohio State? Or Michigan? Or Florida State? Or Texas? Or USC? Or, well, you get the idea.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

NCAA needs to change rules in counting FCS games toward bowl eligibility, they won't but they should.

The NCAA has no say in the matter. The schools of the NCAA do when they vote. If the schools wanted to change the rule to say that you only need five wins to go to a bowl or that you needed at least eight wins to go to a bowl they could do that tomorrow (OK, not literally tomorrow, but at the next NCAA meeting). If the schools voted to change the rule, "the NCAA" could do nothing at all about it.

Why is it so hard for people understand that "the NCAA" is simply the voting will of the member schools? The NCAA does what the schools tell it to do, not the other way around.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

The NCAA has no say in the matter. The schools of the NCAA do when they vote. If the schools wanted to change the rule to say that you only need five wins to go to a bowl or that you needed at least eight wins to go to a bowl they could do that tomorrow (OK, not literally tomorrow, but at the next NCAA meeting). If the schools voted to change the rule, "the NCAA" could do nothing at all about it.

Why is it so hard for people understand that "the NCAA" is simply the voting will of the member schools? The NCAA does what the schools tell it to do, not the other way around.

You're right but if the schools got together and saw that there would be extra revenue in an "exempt rivalry" 13th game as there surely would be, maybe it would be something to consider.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

You're right but if the schools got together and saw that there would be extra revenue in an "exempt rivalry" 13th game as there surely would be, maybe it would be something to consider.

Agreed.

The way that the 1AA games and crappy opponents would end would be if the conference's television partners (including their own networks) said to them that they would rather they not schedule games like that because no one watches them and they don't make money from them. If the televisions people tell the schools they'd rather have one home game against a good team rather than two home games against crappy teams then teams would stop scheduling crappy teams. Simple as that. But as long as the schools make more money scheduling two crappy home games than they do two good home and home games it isn't going to change. It just isn't.

 

[OriginalEther]

Let's assume that all sounds wonderful. What makes anyone think that the colleges would ever vote for it? If Alabama doesn't want to make any road trips to Ypsilanti then why would Alabama vote to enact a rule like that? Or Auburn? Or Ohio State? Or Michigan? Or Florida State? Or Texas? Or USC? Or, well, you get the idea.

Well, yeah, I know. But the subject was crazy scheduling idea.
And I think it's more plausible than having said NCAA try to determine which teams have a rival that allows/forces them to play an extra game.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Agreed.

The way that the 1AA games and crappy opponents would end would be if the conference's television partners (including their own networks) said to them that they would rather they not schedule games like that because no one watches them and they don't make money from them. If the televisions people tell the schools they'd rather have one home game against a good team rather than two home games against crappy teams then teams would stop scheduling crappy teams. Simple as that. But as long as the schools make more money scheduling two crappy home games than they do two good home and home games it isn't going to change. It just isn't.

Funny thing is most schools dont make money off the 1AA games. Just the factories do. You think Purdue or Vandy make money off these? No way. They are just rent a wins.

 

[OH Pete]

With most conferences going to a 9 game schedule, it means less opportunities for non-con rivalry games. Well, I have a solution for that for the good of college football:

An exempt 13th game earmarked for either an in-state, border state, or historical rivalry. Basically, you get a 13th game if you schedule a home and home with a "rival."

The NCAA should come up with a list of rivalries and then inform the schools they get an exemption to play. Examples would be:

Pitt/PSU
Pitt/WVU
WVU/Marshall
WVU/Md
WVU/VT
MD/Uva
FSU UF
Miami UF
KU Mizzou
Texas Texas A&M
Neb OU
etc

Great idea. Except you know PSU would schedule Temple instead of Pitt and claim that is their in-state rival.

 

[Jpripper88]

Better idea is

1. Add an exhibition game. This can be against anyone. Doesn't count in the standings. Serves as a de facto 7th home game for most places.
2. No I-AA teams in the 12 game regular season.
3. All series are home and away. If you want to play eastern Michigan, you got to also go to Ysplanti. None of this home only or this neutral site crap.

Why would the NCAA or the big schools want to do that? Those neutral site games make the most money and teams/fans don't want to play crap schools on the road.

 

[NTOP]

Better idea is

1. Add an exhibition game. This can be against anyone. Doesn't count in the standings. Serves as a de facto 7th home game for most places.
2. No I-AA teams in the 12 game regular season.
3. All series are home and away. If you want to play eastern Michigan, you got to also go to Ysplanti. None of this home only or this neutral site crap.

Would fans come to a meaningless game?? Would coaches want to risk injuries?? The BB "exhibitions" don't draw flies. Spring game turnout, maybe?? Try selling THAT to season tix holders.

 

[OriginalEther]

Why would the NCAA or the big schools want to do that? Those neutral site games make the most money and teams/fans don't want to play crap schools on the road.

Because, IMO, these neutral site games suck for the fans. The fans of say, Alabama and especially Wisconsin, shouldn't have to go to Texas to watch their teams play a regular season game.

And if you're someone who hates Heinz Field because it's off campus, well, these neutral site games are about as off campus as you can get.

For the second part of your statement, that's the hope. That most of the home and home OOC gets filled with legit schools.

Would fans come to a meaningless game?? Would coaches want to risk injuries?? The BB "exhibitions" don't draw flies. Spring game turnout, maybe?? Try selling THAT to season tix holders.

At Pitt? Yeah, probably not much of a sell. I'd still go if I wasn't working that weekend. If anything, that's the perfect game to take the kids.
At a lot of other places? It will sell enough.

The main idea behind adding such a game is to give college football teams something all the pro sports have, as well as college hoops: an exhibition game to work out the kinks.

 

[Jpripper88]

Because, IMO, these neutral site games suck for the fans. The fans of say, Alabama and especially Wisconsin, shouldn't have to go to Texas to watch their teams play a regular season game.

And if you're someone who hates Heinz Field because it's off campus, well, these neutral site games are about as off campus as you can get.

For the second part of your statement, that's the hope. That most of the home and home OOC gets filled with legit schools.

I will agree with you that they suck for the fans. However, they are cash cows for the big time programs. They aren't giving them up.

Why would it? It still isn't a revenue builder for the top programs. They are still much better off with the current system.

 

[michnittlion]

With most conferences going to a 9 game schedule, it means less opportunities for non-con rivalry games. Well, I have a solution for that for the good of college football:

An exempt 13th game earmarked for either an in-state, border state, or historical rivalry. Basically, you get a 13th game if you schedule a home and home with a "rival."

The NCAA should come up with a list of rivalries and then inform the schools they get an exemption to play. Examples would be:

Pitt/PSU
Pitt/WVU
WVU/Marshall
WVU/Md
WVU/VT
MD/Uva
FSU UF
Miami UF
KU Mizzou
Texas Texas A&M
Neb OU
etc

Not the worst idea, but one huge practical problem:

Some schools are just geographically isolated and have no OOC rivals --- who are, for instance the rivals of Washington, Oregon and Oregon State? Texas Tech? Wisconsin and Minnesota? Some schools have 5 potential OOC rivals, and some have none, and that wouldn't work.

 

[phxpanther]

Almost as bad as your ACC three division idea ... Almost

With most conferences going to a 9 game schedule, it means less opportunities for non-con rivalry games. Well, I have a solution for that for the good of college football:

An exempt 13th game earmarked for either an in-state, border state, or historical rivalry. Basically, you get a 13th game if you schedule a home and home with a "rival."

The NCAA should come up with a list of rivalries and then inform the schools they get an exemption to play. Examples would be:

Pitt/PSU
Pitt/WVU
WVU/Marshall
WVU/Md
WVU/VT
MD/Uva
FSU UF
Miami UF
KU Mizzou
Texas Texas A&M
Neb OU
etc

 

[pitt-girl]

Not the worst idea, but one huge practical problem:

Some schools are just geographically isolated and have no OOC rivals --- who are, for instance the rivals of Washington, Oregon and Oregon State? Texas Tech? Wisconsin and Minnesota? Some schools have 5 potential OOC rivals, and some have none, and that wouldn't work.

I think the point of "a rival" is that it is 1 school, not 5. Because you're a PSU fan I'll use the example of PSU - tOSU. It is not a "rivalry" game. Big game? Maybe. But rivalry is reserved for tOSU-Michigan.

 

[michnittlion]

I think the point of "a rival" is that it is 1 school, not 5. Because you're a PSU fan I'll use the example of PSU - tOSU. It is not a "rivalry" game. Big game? Maybe. But rivalry is reserved for tOSU-Michigan.

I know you replied primarily to throw a jab at my nose with the "OSU is not your rival" comment ...... but staying on topic (no offense, your comment wasn't even close to being a relevant response to my comment):

(1) If the OP's idea is going to work, every school has to be eligible for this "13th game."

(2) Some schools may have multiple options for this "13th game." For instance, WVU has all of Marshall, Virginia Tech and Pittsburgh (and arguably Maryland too) as "natural OOC rivals."

(3) However, there are some schools that do not have a "natural OOC rival" For instance -- Oregon, Oregon State, Texas Tech, Wisconsin, Minnesota. Any options we come up with for this "13th game" would be completely contrived and unnatural.

(4) If there are schools that are ineligible for this 13th game, that's unfair and we can't implement the system at all.

 

[pitt-girl]

I know you replied primarily to throw a jab at my nose with the "OSU is not your rival" comment ...... but staying on topic (no offense, your comment wasn't even close to being a relevant response to my comment):

(1) If the OP's idea is going to work, every school has to be eligible for this "13th game."

(2) Some schools may have multiple options for this "13th game." For instance, WVU has all of Marshall, Virginia Tech and Pittsburgh (and arguably Maryland too) as "natural OOC rivals."

(3) However, there are some schools that do not have a "natural OOC rival" For instance -- Oregon, Oregon State, Texas Tech, Wisconsin, Minnesota. Any options we come up with for this "13th game" would be completely contrived and unnatural.

(4) If there are schools that are ineligible for this 13th game, that's unfair and we can't implement the system at all.

Hmmmm, didn't you just post that "some schools have 5 potential OOC rivals"? And didn't I preference my remark with the fact that since you're a PSU fan, I'd use the PSU-tOSU game as an example? Not sure where I'm being irrelevant. My point still stands. IMHO when talking about a "rival" it is generally 1 school, not multiples.

 

[michnittlion]

Hmmmm, didn't you just post that "some schools have 5 potential OOC rivals"? And didn't I preference my remark with the fact that since you're a PSU fan, I'd use the PSU-tOSU game as an example? Not sure where I'm being irrelevant. My point still stands. IMHO when talking about a "rival" it is generally 1 school, not multiples.

Re-read the original post: this is about allowing a "13th game", based on schools (not in the same-conference) that have some sort of "rivalry."

Penn State vs. Ohio State would not qualify for this "13th game" given they're are conference-mates.

A team like WVU --- based on the original poster's criteria, they could theoretically have this "13th game" with any of Pittsburgh, Marshall, Virginia Tech, Penn State or Maryland. That is five.

Meanwhile, Oregon. They could theoretically have this "13th game" with ???

 

[pitt-girl]

Re-read the original post: this is about allowing a "13th game", based on schools (not in the same-conference) that have some sort of "rivalry."

Penn State vs. Ohio State would not qualify for this "13th game" given they're are conference-mates.

A team like WVU --- based on the original poster's criteria, they could theoretically have this "13th game" with any of Pittsburgh, Marshall, Virginia Tech, Penn State or Maryland. That is five.

Meanwhile, Oregon. They could theoretically have this "13th game" with ???

I hear you but again - it is MY OPINION that a school has 1 rivalry as opposed to multiple. That was my point. You want to split hairs about my opinion?

 

[michnittlion]

I hear you but again - it is MY OPINION that a school has 1 rivalry as opposed to multiple. That was my point. You want to split hairs about my opinion?

Point that out to the original poster then. Shoot, he has two rivals listed for Pittsburgh up there!!!! Which one is it?!?!?

Anyway, the original poster's idea is a novel idea, but ultimately impractical. But, IMO, still a topic worthy of discussion (as opposed to your tangent about the number of rivals a school is "allowed" to have).

 

[pitt-girl]

Point that out to the original poster then. Shoot, he has two rivals listed for Pittsburgh up there!!!! Which one is it?!?!?

Wow. OK. I point that out to you AND the OP. Satisfied?

 

[jason21psu]

With most conferences going to a 9 game schedule, it means less opportunities for non-con rivalry games. Well, I have a solution for that for the good of college football:

An exempt 13th game earmarked for either an in-state, border state, or historical rivalry. Basically, you get a 13th game if you schedule a home and home with a "rival."

The NCAA should come up with a list of rivalries and then inform the schools they get an exemption to play. Examples would be:

Pitt/PSU
Pitt/WVU
WVU/Marshall
WVU/Md
WVU/VT
MD/Uva
FSU UF
Miami UF
KU Mizzou
Texas Texas A&M
Neb OU
etc

Do you listen to the First Team on SiriusXM because this was basically my suggestion 5-6 weeks ago? My criteria was there had to be a certain number of years of history with another OOC A5 school to get the exemption. I think I started with 50. I feel like it should have to be significant history for the exemption and no not every team has a 50 year history but that's ok, and not unfair @michnittlion, because ala the Hawaii exemption, it's an exemption, not a standard. It would also give schools incentive for scheduling each other that were close to getting the exemption.

So with that it basically left PSU with Pitt, WVU, and Syracuse as options. Pitt having gone from the BigEast to the ACC might have had a couple more options, but given the options for PSU I would think we'd end up with Syracuse as I would assume the backyard brawl would end up as the exemption for Pitt and WVU. I guess there's nothing to say you couldn't rotate the exemption game but the point of the exemption was to allow for the return of some of the yearly "rivalry" games that have been lost to realignment. My other thought was it should be the first game of the season as mixing it in once conference play starts seems difficult.

Please don't construe this as an attempt to say Pitt isn't PSU's rival. I assumed the backyard brawl as your exemption as it has a longer history and more relevance in recent history. PSU hasn't played Pitt since 2000 while the BYB has been played 11 times over that span. After our upcoming 4 game series one might argue the recent relevancy shifts to Pitt/PSU but it's still only 4 games in 20 years.

The caveat to all this would be it would have to be a big $$ generator because otherwise why would schools schedule the game, which was why I limited it to OOC A5 schools originally. Games like the red river rivalry and Texas/Texas a&m are no brainers. 'Cuse/PSU would be questionable imo.

From your perspective would you rather resurrect the BYB or Pitt/PSU?

EDIT: Probably shouldn't post at 6:30 AM from my phone. exemption => exception

 

[Pghfan]

There was a two day conversation on the SiriusXM college football station last spring about NON P5 D1 schools switching over to play in their season in the spring.. Obviously this would be as a result of the P5 conferences joining their own league.. It was very interesting.. A lot of logistical issues of course but TV revenue wise, a great idea.. Never happen I know but interesting nonetheless.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I know you replied primarily to throw a jab at my nose with the "OSU is not your rival" comment ...... but staying on topic (no offense, your comment wasn't even close to being a relevant response to my comment):

(1) If the OP's idea is going to work, every school has to be eligible for this "13th game."

(2) Some schools may have multiple options for this "13th game." For instance, WVU has all of Marshall, Virginia Tech and Pittsburgh (and arguably Maryland too) as "natural OOC rivals."

(3) However, there are some schools that do not have a "natural OOC rival" For instance -- Oregon, Oregon State, Texas Tech, Wisconsin, Minnesota. Any options we come up with for this "13th game" would be completely contrived and unnatural.

(4) If there are schools that are ineligible for this 13th game, that's unfair and we can't implement the system at all.

I'm 1 step ahead of you. All schools without a geographical or historical rival would go into "pool" of teams that can schedule games against each other and qualify for the exemption. However, there are few teams that would qualify. Lets look at the P5 schools

ACC
BC: Umass or UConn
Syr: RU, UConn, Buffalo, PSU
Pitt: PSU, WVU, RU, Temple
UVa: Md
VT: WVU, Md, ODU, Ten, Vandy, Charlotte, ECU, App St
the 4 NC schools: ECU, Charlotte, App St, ODU, South Carolina, any TN school
Clemson; SC
GT: UGa
Lou: UK
FSU: Fla
Miami: any Fla school

Big Ten:
RU: Syr, Temple, Pitt
PSU: Pitt, WVU, Syr, Temple
Md: UVa, VT
OSU: any Ohio school, have to play home and home, sorry
Mich: any Mich school, have to play home and home, sorry
MSU: ditto
Indiana and Purdue: Ball State or other MACs in neigboring states
NW: Northern Ill
Ill: Mizzou, UNI or MACs
Iowa: ISU
Neb: Oklahoma
Wisconsin: Northern Ill or go into pool of teams without a rival
Minnesota: pool of teams without a rival

SEC:
Ten: Memphis, MTSU, VT
UK: Lou
SC: Clemson
UF: FSU
Mizzou: KU, KST, Ill
UGa: GT
Vandy: MTSU, Memphis
Alabama: Troy, South Alabama, UAB, have to play home and home, sorry
Auburn: ditto
Ole MIss: Southern Miss, Memphis or other American/CUSA/Sun Belt schools in neighboring states
Miss St: Southern Miss or other CUSA/American.Sun Belt schools in neighboring states
LSU: Tulane, La Tech, ULL, or ULM
Ark: Ark Stat, Memphis or other CUSA/AMerican/Sun Belt schools in neighboring states
A&M: Texas

Big 12:
WVU: Pitt, PSU, Md, VT, Marshall
ISU: Iowa
Kansas: Mizzou, Colorado, Col St, AFA
KST: Mizzou, Colorado, Col St, AFA
OU: Neb
OKST: Tulsa or Texas CUSA/AMerican/SB schools
Texas: A&M
TT, TCU, Baylor: UTSA, UNT, UTEP, Houston, SMU, Rice, Texas State

Pac 12:
Arizona, ASU: NM, NM State, Nevada, UNLV
UCLA, USC, Stan, Cal - SDSU, SJSU, Fresno, UNLV, Nevada
Or, ORST - Boise, Idaho, Fresno, SDSU, SJSU, Fresno
Wash, Wash St - Boise, Idaho

There you have it. Every P5 team has a geographical or historical rival except Minnesota and Wisconsin (if you dont count UNI a mere 100 miles away). Perhaps they can be given an exception to schedule a 13th game.

The point of this is to promote college football. There would also have to be a panel created to review exemption requests. Example: PSU wants to use their exemption to schedule Temple, an in-state team they have played many times but have only lost to once. However, Pitt wants to schedule PSU as their exempted game. The panel would tell PSU that they can only use their exemption on Temple, Syr, or WVU in the years that Pitt is not available since that is the kind of rivarly that is trying to be protected.

Same thing goes for Texas & A&M. Texas cant go out and schedule UTSA or UNT if A&M has an open spot for them.

WIth the 13 game schedule, you get:
9 conference games
1 1-AA game
1 G5 game
1 P5 game
1 Exempted rivalry

Also, with my rule, it should be noted that there the 13th game does not have to be played. If PSU doesnt want to play Pitt or the Big Ten schools dont want to play MACs, then they dont have to. They'll just continue their 12 game schedule. But if they want the extra revenue, they can play the 13th game.

 

[jason21psu]

There was a two day conversation on the SiriusXM college football station last spring about NON P5 D1 schools switching over to play in their season in the spring.. Obviously this would be as a result of the P5 conferences joining their own league.. It was very interesting.. A lot of logistical issues of course but TV revenue wise, a great idea.. Never happen I know but interesting nonetheless.

I remember that one too. I liked the idea of the G5s starting a couple weeks earlier than A5s a little better. Gets the G5s 2 weeks of no competing exposure while also allowing them to still participate in the CFB if warranted and NYE 6 bowls.

 

[jason21psu]

I'm 1 step ahead of you. All schools without a geographical or historical rival would go into "pool" of teams that can schedule games against each other and qualify for the exemption. However, there are few teams that would qualify. Lets look at the P5 schools

ACC
BC: Umass or UConn
Syr: RU, UConn, Buffalo, PSU
Pitt: PSU, WVU, RU, Temple
UVa: Md
VT: WVU, Md, ODU, Ten, Vandy, Charlotte, ECU, App St
the 4 NC schools: ECU, Charlotte, App St, ODU, South Carolina, any TN school
Clemson; SC
GT: UGa
Lou: UK
FSU: Fla
Miami: any Fla school

Big Ten:
RU: Syr, Temple, Pitt
PSU: Pitt, WVU, Syr, Temple
Md: UVa, VT
OSU: any Ohio school, have to play home and home, sorry
Mich: any Mich school, have to play home and home, sorry
MSU: ditto
Indiana and Purdue: Ball State or other MACs in neigboring states
NW: Northern Ill
Ill: Mizzou, UNI or MACs
Iowa: ISU
Neb: Oklahoma
Wisconsin: Northern Ill or go into pool of teams without a rival
Minnesota: pool of teams without a rival

SEC:
Ten: Memphis, MTSU, VT
UK: Lou
SC: Clemson
UF: FSU
Mizzou: KU, KST, Ill
UGa: GT
Vandy: MTSU, Memphis
Alabama: Troy, South Alabama, UAB, have to play home and home, sorry
Auburn: ditto
Ole MIss: Southern Miss, Memphis or other American/CUSA/Sun Belt schools in neighboring states
Miss St: Southern Miss or other CUSA/American.Sun Belt schools in neighboring states
LSU: Tulane, La Tech, ULL, or ULM
Ark: Ark Stat, Memphis or other CUSA/AMerican/Sun Belt schools in neighboring states
A&M: Texas

Big 12:
WVU: Pitt, PSU, Md, VT, Marshall
ISU: Iowa
Kansas: Mizzou, Colorado, Col St, AFA
KST: Mizzou, Colorado, Col St, AFA
OU: Neb
OKST: Tulsa or Texas CUSA/AMerican/SB schools
Texas: A&M
TT, TCU, Baylor: UTSA, UNT, UTEP, Houston, SMU, Rice, Texas State

Pac 12:
Arizona, ASU: NM, NM State, Nevada, UNLV
UCLA, USC, Stan, Cal - SDSU, SJSU, Fresno, UNLV, Nevada
Or, ORST - Boise, Idaho, Fresno, SDSU, SJSU, Fresno
Wash, Wash St - Boise, Idaho

There you have it. Every P5 team has a geographical or historical rival except Minnesota and Wisconsin (if you dont count UNI a mere 100 miles away). Perhaps they can be given an exception to schedule a 13th game.

The point of this is to promote college football. There would also have to be a panel created to review exemption requests. Example: PSU wants to use their exemption to schedule Temple, an in-state team they have played many times but have only lost to once. However, Pitt wants to schedule PSU as their exempted game. The panel would tell PSU that they can only use their exemption on Temple, Syr, or WVU in the years that Pitt is not available since that is the kind of rivarly that is trying to be protected.

Same thing goes for Texas & A&M. Texas cant go out and schedule UTSA or UNT if A&M has an open spot for them.

WIth the 13 game schedule, you get:
9 conference games
1 1-AA game
1 G5 game
1 P5 game
1 Exempted rivalry

Also, with my rule, it should be noted that there the 13th game does not have to be played. If PSU doesnt want to play Pitt or the Big Ten schools dont want to play MACs, then they dont have to. They'll just continue their 12 game schedule. But if they want the extra revenue, they can play the 13th game.

I see you put a lot of thought into this but I feel like if we're going to ask Student Athletes to play an additional game it should be for:

1. A game they really want to participate in, i.e. I don't think kids at Ohio State are dying to play Miami of Ohio but we are going to make them because we fans want more football; AND
2. A game that generates needle moving revenue. Theoretically, because these are extra games against non-conference opponents, one could argue that the schools could sell the rights outside of the current TV contracts. Imagine the revenue a 10-yr Red River Rivalry or even a 10-yr Pitt-PSU series would bring.

Finally, I would also ditch the DII games and make them G5 games. If you want to include them in something I'd turn the spring game into a scrimmage for A5 underclassmen (RS Sophs through EE freshman), and walk-ons against the DII schools.

My 12-13 game schedule would be:
9 conference games
1-2 G5 games
1-2 A5 games
1 rivalry exception (which would be an A5 game), if it exists

 

[Pghfan]

I love the idea SMF but one thing you have to ask, is this what the important people want. Let's face it, this would be incredible for fans but we are at the bottom of the totem pole. TV networks would love this and they are important but do the coaches and presidents want this? Maybe the TV dollars trump that, who knows. Great post though.

 

[heybandguy]

I love the idea SMF but one thing you have to ask, is this what the important people want. Let's face it, this would be incredible for fans but we are at the bottom of the totem pole. TV networks would love this and they are important but do the coaches and presidents want this? Maybe the TV dollars trump that, who knows. Great post though.

If ESPN, FS1, and CBS can figure out how to make it profitable, the promise of payout will get them the votes from the NCAA member schools. Neutral site games are great for one group - the local tourism at the neutral site. Can't see some of the Big Boys (well, leave Arkansas out of that for a minute...) agreeing to go complete home and home with smaller programs. I can see a 13th game in the future as "exhibition" against FCS opponents (played prior to week 1). I think the move to 9 conference games and an expanded 8-team playoff means there will be less "rent-a-win" (a great way to phrase it) games as schools try to improve their resume by scheduling from other p5 conferences..

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I see you put a lot of thought into this but I feel like if we're going to ask Student Athletes to play an additional game it should be for:

1. A game they really want to participate in, i.e. I don't think kids at Ohio State are dying to play Miami of Ohio but we are going to make them because we fans want more football; AND
2. A game that generates needle moving revenue. Theoretically, because these are extra games against non-conference opponents, one could argue that the schools could sell the rights outside of the current TV contracts. Imagine the revenue a 10-yr Red River Rivalry or even a 10-yr Pitt-PSU series would bring.

First of all, nobody cares about the players. This college athletics, remember?

You raise a good point, though, but its one I have already thought about. The Ohio State-MAC Ohio "exempt rivalry" or the Michigan-Directional Michigan "exempt rivalry." Why would those schools and fans want that?

Here's why: OSU and Mich typically play an in-state MAC school every year anyway. By giving that game (exempt status), it frees us up an extra game for a high profile non-con game.

Here's a hypothetical OSU schedule:

6 BT East
3 BT West
Cupcake
MAC Ohio or Cincy "exempt rivalry"
High profile non-con game
High profile non-con game

BTW, I LOVE the idea of allowing the schools to sell the TV rights and sponsorships OUTSIDE of their current contracts. I could see Pitt and PSU signing a 10 or 20 year deal with ESPN and PNC for the PNC Keystone Bowl or something like that. Many other schools could do the same. It would be just that extra carrot for these schools (Not just Pitt, PSU) to play each other.

College football has changed forever with expansion. Leagues want to play 9 conf games and have 2 cupcakes. That leaves only 1 game for a rival or another high profile opponent. That's not enough.

Let them have an exempt 13th game to play a rival. Like I said, if they would rather just play 12, then fine but there's less revenue that way. Honestly, I feel that if this idea was ever floated out at a meeting, it would pass without any problems. Its more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and a convenient excuse for adding a 13th game.

 

[OriginalEther]

There was a two day conversation on the SiriusXM college football station last spring about NON P5 D1 schools switching over to play in their season in the spring.. Obviously this would be as a result of the P5 conferences joining their own league.. It was very interesting.. A lot of logistical issues of course but TV revenue wise, a great idea.. Never happen I know but interesting nonetheless.

In lieu of what I've proposed, I've wondered what would happen if the BCS/Power 5 schools left the NCAA to form their own league. Would seem really odd for the NCAA to let schools from essentially two separate leagues play each other.