Eight isn't Enough
Update: If you read the comments
section you will notice that Georgia Buckeye pointed
out that a 9-game conference is mathematically
impossible. I cannot say I am in favor of a 10-games
conference schedule if it means eliminating those
high profile non-conference games.
The Atlantic Coast Conference recently toyed with the idea of adding a ninth conference game. The ACC’s 12-team membership means that each team misses three other conference opponents. Because the Big Ten has one less team, there are only two absent teams on each schedule.
I will start by looking at the common arguments against conferences (and the Big Ten) adding a ninth conference game. They vary in degrees of legitimacy.
For starters, some opponents say that adding only one conference game makes an imperfect system only less imperfect. Unless you are going to solve the entire problem (play a round robin schedule) why mess around with it? If this argument has any merit, it is slight. If you can reduce the odds that two undefeated Big Ten teams miss each other by 50%, why would you not want to do that? Let’s be realistic, too. Even the most casual fan can identify the teams that are going to challenge for the league title every year. Schedule makers can skew the schedules two to three years in advance to make sure Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, and Illinois play each every season. It may seem like an unfair handicap for the top teams but it is also a boost to the lesser teams that receive a bonus, albeit slight, in missing one of those teams.
One common reason proffered by Big Ten school officials is that the budgets are so huge that they cannot afford one less home game per season. I find this argument to be disingenuous. For example, Ohio State plays seven home games this season, eight in 2009 and 2010, and seven again in 2011. As the format stands now, every time they play a big-name non-conference opponent on the road they only have seven home games. If OSU dropped one of the lightweight opponents each year and scheduled their major non-conference road games in years when they have five home Big Ten games, the athletic department would guarantee themselves a minimum of seven home games each season. (The opposite years would be feature four home conference games and three home non-conference games.) Essentially, that means they give up two quarters of home football per year compared with the current scheduling.
Finally, the reason cited by the ACC was that an additional league game would guarantee half of the league’s teams an additional loss. Because the teams have to play each other instead of scheduling a creampuff non-conference game, an automatic win becomes a potential loss. And, more losses equal fewer bowl teams, which equals less money for the league.
There may be some validity to this argument as the Pac 10 added a ninth conference game last season and only had five bowl eligible teams. That number was down from eight eligible teams in 2006. Yet, that argument is muted somewhat when you look at the five-year history for the Pac 10 prior to adding the ninth game. In those years, the Pac 10 only averaged 6.2 bowl eligible teams per season, with two seasons – 2004 and 2005 – only having five eligible teams. Perhaps, 2007 was an anomaly.
Moreover, the NCAA just approved two new bowl games – St. Petersburg Bowl and Congressional Bowl – so there are more spots to plug in poor teams with additional losses. The leagues need to negotiate more tie-ins. Besides, the standard for getting to a bowl game is an arbitrary, subjective standard that can be changed at any time. It is not too long before there is no minimum number of wins required.
Still, the idea of adding a ninth game is music to my Big Ten ears. I cringe when I see Youngstown State, Ohio, and Troy on the schedule. I would gladly replace on of those teams with another conference opponent – home or away.
To make up for the lost revenue, the Big Ten could charge ESPN/ABC more because there is an additional week of conference games to air. Some teams could also raise tickets prices (although, I would not recommend this for OSU since I believe it is the most expensive ticket in college football). Or, maybe teams should not blow their entire bowl money on toys and prizes for the players. And, what about that money the league is making from the Big Ten Network?
As staid and traditional as university presidents seem to be when it comes to college football, I am not expecting to this move anytime soon.
The Atlantic Coast Conference recently toyed with the idea of adding a ninth conference game. The ACC’s 12-team membership means that each team misses three other conference opponents. Because the Big Ten has one less team, there are only two absent teams on each schedule.
I will start by looking at the common arguments against conferences (and the Big Ten) adding a ninth conference game. They vary in degrees of legitimacy.
For starters, some opponents say that adding only one conference game makes an imperfect system only less imperfect. Unless you are going to solve the entire problem (play a round robin schedule) why mess around with it? If this argument has any merit, it is slight. If you can reduce the odds that two undefeated Big Ten teams miss each other by 50%, why would you not want to do that? Let’s be realistic, too. Even the most casual fan can identify the teams that are going to challenge for the league title every year. Schedule makers can skew the schedules two to three years in advance to make sure Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, and Illinois play each every season. It may seem like an unfair handicap for the top teams but it is also a boost to the lesser teams that receive a bonus, albeit slight, in missing one of those teams.
One common reason proffered by Big Ten school officials is that the budgets are so huge that they cannot afford one less home game per season. I find this argument to be disingenuous. For example, Ohio State plays seven home games this season, eight in 2009 and 2010, and seven again in 2011. As the format stands now, every time they play a big-name non-conference opponent on the road they only have seven home games. If OSU dropped one of the lightweight opponents each year and scheduled their major non-conference road games in years when they have five home Big Ten games, the athletic department would guarantee themselves a minimum of seven home games each season. (The opposite years would be feature four home conference games and three home non-conference games.) Essentially, that means they give up two quarters of home football per year compared with the current scheduling.
Finally, the reason cited by the ACC was that an additional league game would guarantee half of the league’s teams an additional loss. Because the teams have to play each other instead of scheduling a creampuff non-conference game, an automatic win becomes a potential loss. And, more losses equal fewer bowl teams, which equals less money for the league.
There may be some validity to this argument as the Pac 10 added a ninth conference game last season and only had five bowl eligible teams. That number was down from eight eligible teams in 2006. Yet, that argument is muted somewhat when you look at the five-year history for the Pac 10 prior to adding the ninth game. In those years, the Pac 10 only averaged 6.2 bowl eligible teams per season, with two seasons – 2004 and 2005 – only having five eligible teams. Perhaps, 2007 was an anomaly.
Moreover, the NCAA just approved two new bowl games – St. Petersburg Bowl and Congressional Bowl – so there are more spots to plug in poor teams with additional losses. The leagues need to negotiate more tie-ins. Besides, the standard for getting to a bowl game is an arbitrary, subjective standard that can be changed at any time. It is not too long before there is no minimum number of wins required.
Still, the idea of adding a ninth game is music to my Big Ten ears. I cringe when I see Youngstown State, Ohio, and Troy on the schedule. I would gladly replace on of those teams with another conference opponent – home or away.
To make up for the lost revenue, the Big Ten could charge ESPN/ABC more because there is an additional week of conference games to air. Some teams could also raise tickets prices (although, I would not recommend this for OSU since I believe it is the most expensive ticket in college football). Or, maybe teams should not blow their entire bowl money on toys and prizes for the players. And, what about that money the league is making from the Big Ten Network?
As staid and traditional as university presidents seem to be when it comes to college football, I am not expecting to this move anytime soon.
