Building The Dam: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: MLB postseason scores, schedules and blog coverage Bar-right-arrows



Non-Conference Scheduling

Baseball season officially ended yesterday, so now, we move on to football. This could quite possibly the longest post I've ever written, so make sure you continue after the break to read the whole thing. I'm interested in your thoughts, so feel free to leave a comment after you read.

John Canzano brought up a good discussion topic on his radio show "The Bald Faced Truth" the other day: Do you want to see your team pick up wins by rolling over teams like Idaho State, or do you want them to schedule top-tier programs like Ohio Sate, Michigan, and LSU?

While I think the answer this question is a happy medium between the two extremes, it's worth debating. 

First off, let's back up. The Pac-10 scheduling system allows every team to play each other each year. It didn't used to be that way, as every year 2005 and before each team would play eight of the nine Pac-10 schools. In 2003 and 2004, that was UCLA for the Beavers. In 2005, the Beavers had a bye from playing USC.

Now that every Pac-10 school plays every other Pac-10 school each year, the competition improves. Every school has to play the California, Arizona State, and USC every year. But the one area where each school can veer off the track is the three or four non-conference games played every year.

The Beavers are traveling to Penn State this year to take on an always talented, Joe Paterno led team. According to Canzano, it's a step in the right direction for the Beavers. We also have Hawaii and Utah. The Beavers get Hawaii at home after traveling to the islands two years ago, but travel to Salt Lake City to take on Utah in return for last year's game played at Reser Stadium. Hawaii doesn't look like they'll be the same team without Colt Brennan, but Utah could be tough, especially on the road.

Vote in the poll, then continue after the break to read much more on the topic.

Star-divide

 

 

Let's take a look back over the last five years. In 2003, we played Sacramento State, Fresno State, New Mexico State, and Boise State out of conference. We beat Sacramento State handily at home, lost a close one to Fresno on the road, beat New Mexico State by twelve, and took one from Boise State at home by two. 

From a fan's perspective, I have hardly any memories of the Sacramento State and New Mexico State games. I still remember listening to that Fresno State game on the radio (Maybe a new Pac-10 commissioner will get us a better TV deal?), and I also remember the Boise State home game, although it's not as fresh in my mind as the one that Alexis Serna won in the closing seconds in 2005. The Beavers emerged 3-1 from non-conference play in 2003.

We can all remember the LSU game from 2004, but there was also Boise State and New Mexico that year. Boise State crushed us on the blue turf that year, but we won the next week against New Mexico. We would have liked to come out of that stretch 2-1, but 1-2 is how it went. Nobody was expecting the LSU game to be as close as it was, and some may argue that we could have won the Boise State game. Still, scheduling LSU takes guts, and we did it. And we almost pulled off a win.

In 2005, the non-conference opponents were Portland State, Boise State, and Louisville. A win came easily against Portland State in the first ever game at newly expanded Reser Stadium, and a great win came over Boise State by the score of 30-27. I'm sure anyone who attended that game remembers it, and it's definitely in my top three home games all time at the new Reser Stadium. However, we did get schlacked the next week by (then #11) Louisville. After the Lousiville debacle and the Cincinatti debacle, we now know to stay away from the Big East.  So there we have it, 2-1 in '05.

In 2006 it was Eastern Washington (yawn), Boise State, Idaho (yawn) and Hawaii at the end of the year. Eastern Washington and Idaho were both a breeze, but Boise State again handed it to us on the blue turf. The Hawaii game was a great one, an other one that not many people thought we could win. The Warriors are tough, the Beavers had to travel, and they've got the "haka". But Oregon State pulled off the win, went 3-1 in non-conference, and won the Sun Bowl. 2006 has probably been the marquee year of the Mike Riley era if you look at the wins against USC, Oregon, Hawaii, and Missouri, and we did it with both Eastern Washington and Idaho on the schedule. So there's an argument, Canzano.

On to the final year of our short study... 2007, a.k.a. last year. The Beavers won while switching quarterbacks at home against Utah, lost while switching quarterbacks on the road at Cincinnati, and won (yawn) against Idaho State 61-0 (yawn). Utah wasn't terrible, they weren't great, but it seemed to help our chances when two of their players left the game with injuries. We never put ourselves in a position to win the Cincinatti game (final score: 34-3), so there's not many "what if?'s" there. And then, there's Idaho State, the game when Sean Canfield threw for five million yards, Sammie Stroughter actually played, and we still didn't know how good we really were.

To refresh your memory, the year we're playing at Penn State, home against Hawaii, and at Utah.  Let's just say that we have the best chance to beat Hawaii and Utah. If we could get real for a minute, right now, the Penn State game looks like a loss. We'll start looking at all the different facets of that team as we get closer to September 6, but right now, it's a loss. Beaver Stadium, State College, 108,000 screaming people, traveling across the country, the odds are just stacked against the Beavers. But it's going to be a great game for the Beavers. If we don't fall flat on our faces like we did in '05 at Louisville and in '07 at Cincinnati, it could be a competitive game. And we could make a name for ourselves on national television.

Going back to the question posed at the beginning of this post: I like what we've done this season. We've got the big-name team in Penn State. And we've got a couple of competitive teams in Utah and Hawaii. There's no Idaho or Idaho State this year. There's no team that we know we're going to roll over. I can see us going 2-1, 3-0 if we are extremely lucky, but I can also see the Beavers finish the three games at 0-3, and that's the beauty of these three games. 

From a business perspective, there's not a game here that won't be well attended. Obviously, only one of these three games (Hawaii) is at home, and with all the recent history surrounding the Warriors, people are going to be interested in that game. We're not going to see a half empty stadium because fans think the opponent isn't worth the time, the tickets, the concessions, and the gas it takes to get to the stadium.

I don't think it's possible to schedule Top 25 teams for every non-conference game every year. And I don't think we want that. We need wins to get to 6-6, and when you're in the Pac-10, that's not always a breeze. I also don't think it's possible from a financial standpoint. Also, teams like Louisiana State, Florida, Penn State, etc. aren't going to want to come play at Reser Stadium. Sure, we could play them on the road like we did at LSU in '04 and what we'll do September 6 at Penn State, but we're not going to succeed by always playing Top 25 teams on the road.

Here's a look at what other schools in the conference are doing, with rankings from The Sporting News:

1. USC: at Virginia, Ohio State, Notre Dame
2. Washington: BYU, Oklahoma, Notre Dame
3. UCLA: Tennessee, at BYU, Fresno State 
4. Oregon State: at Penn State, Hawaii, at Utah 
5. California: Michigan State, at Maryland, Colorado State 
6. Arizona State: Georgia, Northern Arizona, UNLV 
7. Oregon: Utah State, at Purdue, Boise State 
8. Washington State: Oklahoma State, at Baylor, Portland State
9. Stanford: at TCU, San Jose State, at Notre Dame 
10. Arizona: Idaho, Toledo, at New Mexico

My first reaction is "wow, look at USC", and my second reaction is "wow, look at Arizona". Two completely different scheduling strategies are at work there if you ask me.

Next year, we've got Portland State, UNLV, and Cincinnati. In 2010, we've locked up a game with Louisville, but there's still two non-conference games to add. Louisville should have a decent team in 2010. If you're Bob De Carolis, how do you approach scheduling the final two games for 2010? 

Keep in mind that our most successful year with Mike Riley came with Eastern Washington on the schedule. The second most successful season came with Idaho State on the schedule.

You may vote for your opinion in the poll below.

Again, a special thanks out to John Canzano, John Strong, Gavin Dawson, and all the others on the Bald-Faced Truth and on 95.5 The Game.

I'm interested to hear everyone's response.

GO BEAVERS!

--JB--

 

Poll
As a fan who pays good money to buy tickets, how would you like to see the Athletic Department schedule non-conference games?
  • One marquee non-conference game per year is the way to go. Bring on Penn State, but leave teams like Idaho State on the schedule.
  • No more pansies. I want high caliber top 25 teams every non-conference game. Bring on Ohio State and LSU.
  • I would rather beat bad teams than lose to better teams. Line up the Montana State's and the Eastern Washingtons.

  92 votes | Results

0 recs | Comment 6 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Non-Conf Sched.

It all depends upon which conf. you’re coming from. I used to wish teams would play upper tier non-conf. games only. Not so anymore. The way the current post-season is formatted, it places a premium on wins, not quality of competition. Just look at the non-conf. schedules from the last 10 BCS Champions. If you’re from a BCS conf. all that you need is wins. That’s it, plain and simple. Just win.

A loss against any sort of competition will hurt you much more than a win against good competition will gain you.

Now, if you’re from the WAC or Mountain West, you need some upper tier competition to get any sort of post-season chance (see BYU, they’re playing two PAC-10 teams this year).

The Beavers need all the wins that they can get. I’d rather see them go 3-0 against sub-par competition than 1-2 against the uppers. Remember, they tried playing the uppers in in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s. What did it gain them? A big payday…and, oh ya, it helped them to their record 28 straight losing seasons. Been there and done that, not fun.

There are enough tough games within the PAC-10, they don’t need to seek beatings outside of the conference, especially on the road. Notice how many other teams are playing two non-conference games on the road this year besides the Beavers? That’s right. One. And it’s Stanford. There is no way that anyone in the PAC 10 should be playing two non-conf. games on the road in the same season. UW and ASU are playing ZERO non-conf. games on the road this year. ASU did that last year too, if I remember correctly (and played 8 home games). I think that’s the way to go if possible (granted, ASU can pull that off a whole lot quicker than OSU…but I still think that OSU needn’t sched two non-conf. road games a year.) No PAC-10 team (including OSU) should EVER have less than 7 home games per year, end of story. The year you play 4 conf. home games, you should sched 3 non-conf. home games, the year you have 5 conf. home games you should sched no less than 2 non-conf. home games. And yes, on occassion you SHOULD schedule 8 home games. I have no problem with that and envy the teams that take advantage of it. OSU should sometime too. Especially in the seasons that OSU only has 4 conf. home games, they should schedule non-conf. wins, plain and simple.

Back to my point. If any BCS school team goes through the year undefeated, they’re almost certainly in the BCS Title game (unless, of course, there’s three undefeated teams) regardless of the level of competition for their non-conf. games.

Wins are at a premium in this system…I say schedule wins.

It would be horrible, in my opinion, if OSU should have a special season sometime and run the table in conference and lose out on the the BCS title game because we weren’t “weanies” and scheduled somefer hard non-conf road games and lost. Let ‘em call us weanies, I don’t care…I’ll take the wins (and the trip the “Title” game).

I’m also tired of playing inferior conf. opponents top teams…you’re supposed to beat them so not much is gained by defeating them, but there’s a lot to lose with a loss…I say beat up on the weaker teams from inferior conferences.

~Konce

~Konce

by Konce on Jun 26, 2008 9:44 AM PDT   0 recs

Good insight.

When it comes down to it, you need six wins to get to a bowl no matter who you play.

--JB--

by Jake on Jun 26, 2008 3:19 PM PDT   0 recs

A lot of it depends on how high you set your crosshairs...

You’ll be squeaked out of the BCS bowls (Unless you’re Ohio State) if you don’t schedule some sort of nationally respected team for your non-conference. I think Oregon State has a pretty nice looking non-conference schedule this season. If you were to substitute Penn State with a Central Washington, then you’re chance at a BCS bowl would be much less.

I disagree to some extent with Konce. I think there is somewhat of a Risk vs Reward system in place. Scheduling a Georgia, Florida State, or Michigan really does a lot for the program. Beat those teams, and you’ll get more national attention, and more East coast teams will want to schedule a home-home. Typically a win is better than a loss, but a bigger win is better than a football gimmie.

Go Duckies!

by JShufelt on Jun 27, 2008 7:58 AM PDT   0 recs

JS

What was the marquee, non-conf. win that the Beavers had in 2000 that propelled them to their only BCS game so far? I can’t seem to think of it. I know it wasn’t Eastern Washington…in fact, had OSU not blocked a field goal in that game…man! In fact, had they played Penn State that year instead of Eastern Washington…there would be NO way OSU would enjoy a shellacking of the Golden Domers in the Fiesta bowl. 9-2 would not have gotten them to the Fiest Bowl…10-1 did. A poor win at home against div. 1AA Eastern WA was worth a whole lot more than a loss anywhere to Penn State. (And if htey played Penn State like they played EWU, it would have definitely been a loss…by a LOT.) End of story. The PAC-10 is a strong enough conference by itself that it got the Beavers in, not their non-conf. sched.

The current post-season system places a higher priority on Wins than quality of opponents. See above.

Granted, I’m not penciling in a loss @ PSU this year quite yet…but the chances of a win are much decreased than a home date with EWU. 10-2 at the end of the year looks a lot better than 9-3, no matter the competition.

~Konce

~Konce

by Konce on Jun 27, 2008 11:19 AM PDT   0 recs

It's not the same now.

First, I never said I entirely disagreed with you.
Today the Pac-10 plays a round robin schedule, so you wouldn’t even get the option to play Eastern Washington. Even if you did play Penn State in ‘00, the Beavers were obviously a great team, and I don’t doubt you would have beaten them, and been in the same spot.

Conferences, like the Big-10, schedule 8 conference games, and 4 non-conference games. They go out, beat up on the little guy, and then they totally shoot themselves in the foot later when they start playing games with meaning. But because they schedule a cake walk, they still are able to squeeze in to a bowl game (Where they get blown out). I think it’s a sham against other teams. If you want to be taken seriously at a national level year-in-year out, don’t be afraid to schedule big opponents. That’s why Fresno St. gets a lot of respect – they schedule big schools, and they pull out an upset. If they could survive their own conference schedule, they’d be in the big dance.

Besides, if you’ll remember back that year, when Florida State was picked over Miami and Washington. Miami and Washington easily won their games, and Florida State was make a joke of by Oklahoma. The BCS added in the “Quality Win” bonus to the formula after that because.

Quality Wins DO matter. A Quality win is better than a cupcake win. A cupcake win is better than a loss. Risk V. Reward.

Go Duckies!

by JShufelt on Jun 27, 2008 11:55 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I don't entirely disagree, either.

However, some of your points are moot. Yes, the PAC-10 plays a round robin…because they’ve added a twelfth game…thus the number of non-conf. games has NOT change since 2000. They played 3 non-conf. games in 2000, they played 3 non-conf. games last year, they’ll play 3 non-conf. games next year. I don’t see how that weeds out EWU. In fact, since the round robin has started in conference, OSU has played 4 non-conf. games in one season (2006).

The Beavers would’ve beaten PSU at the end of that year, yes…but they were a totally different team then, than at the beginning when they barely squeaked by EWU…and THAT’s when they would’ve played PSU, not at the end when they were rolling. You’d have to trade the EWU for PSU straight across, and at the beginning of the season, PSU would’ve rolled.

Yes, a quality win is better than a cupcake win absolutely, but there’s still more to lose with any loss than you gain with any win.

Using Fresno State as an example does not compare…they’re not in a BCS conference. Yes, of course they have too, absolutely. You missed my point evidently. As long as you are in a BCS conference, all you have to do is WIN. (And not even that, sometimes. See LSU) Who did LSU, the BCS title winner, play last year? Middle TN State, Tulane, and Louisiana Tech. Somehow that was enough to overcome 2, TWO losses. They also beat VA Tech…but you haven’t sold me yet. (See Oregon, 2001)

Oregon scheduled a big-time opponent in 2001 (Wisconsin), won, and still got jobbed out of the title game. I maintain that the win over Wisconsin got them no better bowl than if it had been EWU. It’s not so much about the opponent out of conference if you’re a BCS school team. Unfortunately, it’s more about politics and a big popularity contest (polls).

Give me an example of how the “Quality Win” bonus points has affected the outcome of the BCS standings since it’s been implemented. I can’t think of one. I know it’s there, but I think it’s mainly window dressing.

I respect teams that schedule good games…however I don’t totally diss like I used to, the ones that sched. cupcakes.

~Konce

~Konce

by Konce on Jun 27, 2008 12:27 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed



Manager

Rodjers_small Jake

Editor

Small CV3000

Author

Finaltback_small The VD Special

2006_05090137_small beavers415

ad

Site Meter