2006 Conference Schedule Breakdown

[ktffan]

With 3-7 more games to schedule (no to mention possible changes). Statistics of this years non-conference opponents based on where they finished last year:

Top 10 teams:

Independent 6
CUSA 6
Big Ten 5
Big 12 5
ACC 5
Sun Belt 4
PAC-10 4
MAC 4
WAC 2
SEC 2
Big East 2
MWC 1

Ranked teams:

CUSA 15
Sun Belt 11
MAC 10
Independent 9
PAC-10 8
Big 12 7
ACC 7
SEC 6
Big Ten 6
WAC 5
MWC 5
Big East 3

BCS opponents:

MAC 33
CUSA 27
Sun Belt 24
Independent 23
WAC 18
Big East 18
ACC 16
SEC 15
Big Ten 14
PAC-10 13
MWC 13
Big 12 11

Bowl teams:

CUSA 24
MAC 23
Sun Belt 20
MWC 18
Independent 18
PAC-10 17
SEC 16
Big 12 16
ACC 16
WAC 13
Big East 12
Big Ten 10

Non-IA teams:

Big 12 11
ACC 9
SEC 8
Big Ten 8
WAC 7
CUSA 7
Big East 6
PAC-10 5
MWC 5
MAC 4
Sun Belt 3
Independent 2

Home Games:

SEC 40
ACC 36
Big 12 34
Big Ten 31
Big East 24
CUSA 23
Independent 21
WAC 19
PAC-10 18
MWC 17
MAC 14
Sun Belt 8

Away games:

MAC 33
Sun Belt 28
CUSA 24
Independent 21
WAC 19
MWC 17
Big East 15
Big Ten 13
PAC-10 12
ACC 11
Big 12 9
SEC 8

Opponents winning percentage:

Sun Belt (253-190-0)--0.571
CUSA (314-244-0)--0.563
Pac-10 (197-168-0)--0.540
MWC (220-193-0)--0.533
Big 12 (278-266-0)--0.511
Independent (279-270-0)--0.508
ACC (275-280-0)--0.495
Big Ten (256-261-0)--0.495
Big East (221-234-0)--0.486
WAC (209-225-0)--0.482
MAC (266-287-0)--0.481
SEC (254-296-0)--0.462

[Eric]

I think I can..............See a pattern.........OH!

Now I see, it is quite obvious that bigger schools tend to schedule cupcakes at home (including 1-AA teams) and that the small schools must go on the road to play better teams. Come on major schools! Don't wuss out! I encourage more and more teams to be like Ohio State who would at least schedule competitve football teams on the OOC, not Sam Houston State, Rice, Eastern Washington, and Duke.

[Eric]

I don't really blame SEC schools for scheduling teams like the 4 I listed above, the SEC schedule, like you said, is tedious to play through. Even the bottom feeders could possibly give you a slight battle and it can sometimes be a struggle. There are usually 4 or 5 super good teams that you have to play in a season, and the cellar dwellers aren't terrible either. So, I normally give Auburn a pass when they schedule teams like The Citadel and Western Kentucky.

[ktffan]

I don't really blame SEC schools for scheduling teams like the 4 I listed above, the SEC schedule, like you said, is tedious to play through. Even the bottom feeders could possibly give you a slight battle and it can sometimes be a struggle. There are usually 4 or 5 super good teams that you have to play in a season, and the cellar dwellers aren't terrible either. So, I normally give Auburn a pass when they schedule teams like The Citadel and Western Kentucky.

How is scheduling Western Kentucky different than scheduling Kent State, San Jose State or Akron?

[Spence]

I think I can..............See a pattern.........OH!

Now I see, it is quite obvious that bigger schools tend to schedule cupcakes at home (including 1-AA teams) and that the small schools must go on the road to play better teams. Come on major schools! Don't wuss out! I encourage more and more teams to be like Ohio State who would at least schedule competitve football teams on the OOC, not Sam Houston State, Rice, Eastern Washington, and Duke.

Everyone should schedule 2 major and 2 mid-major opponents. There is to much attention to wins (in the major conferences) and not enough attention to who the wins were against. Minnesota in the B-10 is really bad about this. They schedule a very weak non conference schedule because if the can get to 6 wins they are bowl eligible. Doesn't matter if 4 of those wins were against nobody. Everyone should be judge not only by wins, but for who those wins were against.

This is something that a lot of majors do and it isn't right.

[mountainman]

There is a awfully lot of emphasis put on winning this day and time.

Mix that emphasis with all the potential dollars that are available if a program can manage to win and toss in a little greed and a few ego's and one has concocted a powerful potion that can either help or hurt the game, depending on how it is managed.

I think the good programs manage it well, while the not so good programs let it manage them.

[Spence]

Yeah, I want 1-2 majors on the schedule. I just don't want Tennessee, Notre Dame, LSU, & Auburn all in a row. That would wear any team down too much. As it is Alabama usually gets Mississippi State, LSU and Auburn to finish the season. Mississippi St. isn't usually that good, but when they are, that is a heck of a stretch. Alabama has no byes this year either.

I think that kind of schedule would be good. If you get through it nobody can question the schedule. Also with a schedule like that you could likely lose a game in there and still be alright.

[Jason G]

The question was posed as to how scheduling Western Kentucky is different than scheduling Kent State, San Jose State, or Akron.

The obvious difference is the inherent disadvantage of 1-AA schools in the number of players on full scholarship. KSU, SJU, and Akron all have the same number of players on scholarship as Auburn, Texas, USC, and Ohio State. The Hilltoppers and other 1-AA programs do not. Division 1-AA schools have a disadvantage in the rules while the non-BCS 1-A conferences and teams have a disadvantage in perception, opportunity, and exposure when compared to schools that have a more well-known tradition. As I've said before if non-BCS schools received the same amount of attention, exposure, and opportunity to make a national impact more top-notch recruits would go to these schools creating even more 1-A parity than what already exists.

This is not a knock on Western Kentucky, after all they were the national champions just a couple years ago and likely would have beaten a few dozen 1-A schools that year, but they do have a disadvantage when looking solely at the numbers.

Personally, I'm a little disappointed you put Akron in that question. The stats posted in the beginning of this thread clearly show the MAC making strides to become better noticed nationally and the Zips are the defending conference champions. Unlike a school like KSU, the Akron program has made big strides the last few years.

[Spence]

This is not a knock on Western Kentucky, after all they were the national champions just a couple years ago and likely would have beaten a few dozen 1-A schools that year, but they do have a disadvantage when looking solely at the numbers.

Personally, I'm a little disappointed you put Akron in that question. The stats posted in the beginning of this thread clearly show the MAC making strides to become better noticed nationally and the Zips are the defending conference champions. Unlike a school like KSU, the Akron program has made big strides the last few years.

Western Kentucky or no other 1-AA would beat a D-1 conference champ. The MAC doesn't get the respect they deserve for playing top level competition. the MAC could go the route of other conferences and schedule to make their win-loss record good. They don't do that, they make the effort to play top level OAK competition and should be commended for it.

I know they have taken their lumps in a lot of those games, but they have also won some and played a lot of them tight. There is more of a difference in 1-AA and D-1 then there is between the mid majors and the majors. In my opinion the MAC is making great strides in trying to become competitive with the top level talent in CFB.

I hear people say that a team like (for example 2004 USC) could beat (insert bad NFL team here). It isn't true. The worst NFL team would kill the best college football team. It wouldn't be close. While the talent level between D-1 and D-1AA isn't as wide as NFL to D-1 there is a difference in team talent. There aren't enough guys that fall through the cracks to make very many teams competitive. The exception being a team like Marshall a few years ago, but their top guys were guys who would have been D-1 had they not had bad reputations.

No one is going to confuse the MAC with the SEC, but they are head a shoulders better then any 1AA conference.

[Spence]

The Big Ten took full advantage of the 12th game next year scheduling 8- 1AA teams. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Purdue, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin, and Penn State scheduling 1-AA opponents.

1-AA wins shouldn't count towards bowl eligibility. You can kind of understand Illinois and Indiana's reasoning, but there is no excuse for the rest. Why have a 12th game if it is only going to be a scrimmage?

[ktffan]

The question was posed as to how scheduling Western Kentucky is different than scheduling Kent State, San Jose State, or Akron.

The obvious difference is the inherent disadvantage of 1-AA schools in the number of players on full scholarship. KSU, SJU, and Akron all have the same number of players on scholarship as Auburn, Texas, USC, and Ohio State. The Hilltoppers and other 1-AA programs do not. Division 1-AA schools have a disadvantage in the rules while the non-BCS 1-A conferences and teams have a disadvantage in perception, opportunity, and exposure when compared to schools that have a more well-known tradition. As I've said before if non-BCS schools received the same amount of attention, exposure, and opportunity to make a national impact more top-notch recruits would go to these schools creating even more 1-A parity than what already exists.

Disadvantages or not, Western Kentucky fielded a better team than the Akron, Kent State and San Jose State teams that Ohio State played in their non-conference schedule (it was the 4-7 Akron team I was talking about). I find it strange that people rip on teams for playing decent I-AA teams, but they don't rip on them for playing I-A teams that are of lower caliber than those I-AA teams.

To answer my own question, the difference is that, because of the scholarships and other advantages, the I-A teams MIGHT make something of themselves, however, people who think these I-AA teams are truely that much weaker than some of the other teams played are mistaken.

[ktffan]

1-AA wins shouldn't count towards bowl eligibility. You can kind of understand Illinois and Indiana's reasoning, but there is no excuse for the rest. Why have a 12th game if it is only going to be a scrimmage?

You know why.

[ktffan]

The Big Ten has only played 29 I-AA teams in their history, next year they are playing 8. While it's not much different skillwise than playing some of the MAC teams, it is disappointing.

[Eric]

I have to disagree with that. I'd take Ball State beating Eastern Illinois 19 out of 20 games. Not just beating them, but beating them up pretty bad. The gap is pretty vast. The top 10 1-AA schools could compete with terrible 1-A schools, but beyond that, it can get ugly. And to compare the MAC to a 1-AA conference is a total overstatement. The MAC is much better. I don't think that Coastal Carolina, Jacksonville State, or Sacramento State could pose much of a threat to teams like Pittsburgh, Kansas State, Iowa State, and Alabama that the MAC beat in the "MAC Attack" year.

[ktffan]

I have to disagree with that. I'd take Ball State beating Eastern Illinois 19 out of 20 games. Not just beating them, but beating them up pretty bad. The gap is pretty vast. The top 10 1-AA schools could compete with terrible 1-A schools, but beyond that, it can get ugly. And to compare the MAC to a 1-AA conference is a total overstatement. The MAC is much better. I don't think that Coastal Carolina, Jacksonville State, or Sacramento State could pose much of a threat to teams like Pittsburgh, Kansas State, Iowa State, and Alabama that the MAC beat in the "MAC Attack" year.

Ball State is 2-2 against their last 4 I-AA opponents. Already your 19 of 20 games speculation is suspect. In the last last 10 years, MAC teams have lost 19 games to I-AA teams. However, if you view the record of the bottom of the MAC vs. the better I-AA teams, of which Western Kentucky is one, you'll see the bottom of the MAC is NOT better than those I-AA teams. In the last 10 years, MAC teams that finished with a losing conference record are 6-11 against I-AA teams that finished with a winning record, they are 1-8 against I-AA teams that went to the playoffs. Against mid-majors with losing conference records, I-AA teams with winning records finished 28-33, barely better than a draw. Teams that went to the I-AA playoffs are 23-21 against mid-majors that finished with a losing conference record. A lot of the teams that play BCS teams are teams that end up going to the playoffs. You are correct that these teams are not threats to the BCS schools, but they are better than the lower end mid-majors.