Scheduling 2 for 1's?

[K-Roo]

Just surfing some future schedules and wonder should Akron do more of this?

Most of these are 2 for 1's etc:

Vanderbuilt @ UMass 2013

Boston College @ UMass 2014

Colorado @ UMass 2014

Indiana @ BG 2014

Baylor @ Buffalo 2014

Miami FL @ Toledo 2015

Minnesota @ Miami OH 2016

Kansas @ Ohio 2017

NC State @ CMU 2014

Oklahoma State @ CMU 2015

Kansas @ CMU 2018

Maryland @ BG 2018

Nebraska @ NIU (Chicago) 2016

Missouri @ Toledo 2014

Michigan State @ WMU 2015

Illinois @ WMU 2016

Pittsburgh @ Akron 2015 1 for 1

Iowa State @ Akron 2019

[UA1987]

Yes, Akron should be doing more of this type scheduling because it includes least 1 home game. The 1 and done money games are a way to rip up a program (except for one team I'd like to not name here). Only schedule opponents that will travel to Akron for a least 1 game and we will develop a winning tradition and the money, and bowl games, will be there for UA.

[GP1]

Just surfing some future schedules and wonder should Akron do more of this?

My opinion is we should not do this, because our OOC schedule should look as follows, in any order:

1. BCS team on the road to break the bank but guarantees a loss.

2. D1A non BCS team at home 50/50 chance of winning

3. D1A non BCS team on the road 50/50 chance of winning

4. Cupcake 1AA team at home guaranteeing a win.

My schedule guarantees one loss, one win and 50/50 shot at two other games.

Replacing a non BCS D1A team at home with a BCS team increases the chances of losing and gets us little in return. No thanks. We need to play as many games as possible at our level and increase our chances of winning. This isn't shying away from teams, but an effort to compete against teams more like us. We also don't need to heap more misery upon ourselves. When we get this team turned around, we should start every year at 2-2. I'm sick of setting ourselves up for failure by starting every year out 1-3.

[UA1987]

My opinion is we should not do this, because our OOC schedule should look as follows, in any order:

1. BCS team on the road to break the bank but guarantees a loss.

2. D1A non BCS team at home 50/50 chance of winning

3. D1A non BCS team on the road 50/50 chance of winning

4. Cupcake 1AA team at home guaranteeing a win.

My schedule guarantees one loss, one win and 50/50 shot at two other games.

Replacing a non BCS D1A team at home with a BCS team increases the chances of losing and gets us little in return. No thanks. We need to play as many games as possible at our level and increase our chances of winning. This isn't shying away from teams, but an effort to compete against teams more like us. We also don't need to heap more misery upon ourselves. When we get this team turned around, we should start every year at 2-2. I'm sick of setting ourselves up for failure by starting every year out 1-3.

Your formula would exclude the likes of Indiana, Memphis, Navy, Army, UConn, Colorado, Iowa State, Minnesota, and Purdue to name a few. These are teams hold national reconition and will be winnable games as we gain strength. I don't like any guaranteed loss situation either (option #1). It's simple filter: you come here for a game in the contract then we schedule you. This would stop all games that garner disrespect in the media for the University. I Know players like these venue games, but the days of the Rubber Bowl are over. Come here at least once or find another team to schedule. All FCS teams would only have the option to play here. I like your emphasis on W's of course, but no need for a money game when the money will pour in with a good schedule and a sustainable football program.

[GP1]

Your formula would exclude the likes of Indiana, Memphis, Navy, Army, UConn, Colorado, Iowa State, Minnesota, and Purdue to name a few. These are teams hold national reconition and will be winnable games as we gain strength.

I agree some of these are winnable games. Not at the percent some non BCS teams give us. Those include Memphis, Navy and Army and they aren't BCS teams. Throw in Colorado right now as well..they are the only BCS team on the list we could beat.

My problem with the above is, if we are going to play a BCS team, let's play one a year where we break the bank...An ATM game. I don't see the above teams as the types of schools that we could break the bank with. Michigan, OSU, PSU (before Sandusky), Tennessee, etc. are bank breaking games.

I hate ATM games, but until non BCS schools figure out how to make money to support their now completed "building process" (Who are we kidding, it never ends.) we are stuck with them. HINT: Playing in the spring would bring in TV revenue that would support the "building process".

[UA1987]

The American Athletic Conference (Old Big East) is still a BCS conference I believe (Navy and Memphis are in this conference's plans) - could be wrong as there was some controversy there. Let's see if this gets you off the ATM game - what is the one thing that could catapult a team to national recognition with all that means in revenue and recruiting in one year besides a national championship? Answer - an undefeated season. Your ATM game would almost guarantee this would never happen. Now that's far away from our current position we all know, but when talking about scheduling you are talking 5 years down the road. We just might be ready at that time.

[GP1]

The American Athletic Conference (Old Big East) is still a BCS conference I believe (Navy and Memphis are in this conference's plans) - could be wrong as there was some controversy there. Let's see if this gets you off the ATM game - what is the one thing that could catapult a team to national recognition with all that means in revenue and recruiting in one year besides a national championship? Answer - an undefeated season. Your ATM game would almost guarantee this would never happen. Now that's far away from our current position we all know, but when talking about scheduling you are talking 5 years down the road. We just might be ready at that time.

The AAC will not be a BCS conference for long. Besides, any victory over someone in that league wouldn't be seen as a BCS victory. People aren't that stupid.

The question you ask is based upon the idea that in a few years, college football is going to look like it does right now. It won't. I don't find it to be a serious question, but I'll play along. Should we schedule based upon something that almost never happens? No we shouldn't. If we have a scheduling problem, it has nothing to do with 1 for 2 or anything like that. There is a lack of vision for making programs better through good competition and increased probability of winning without scheduling all 1AA teams. BCS schools have it right. They play one 1AA team, two non BCS teams and one decent BCS team. It's a vision for winning, not some grasp at recognition that will be here today and gone tomorrow. Under Brookhart, we beat more than one BCS level team. How did that end up? Where is the recognition that bolstered recruiting?

I'll give you a better scenario. What is the one thing that could catapult a team to national recognition with all that means in revenue and recruiting? Also, this scenario falls within the world of reality for a school like UofA. Answer - A National Championship during an undefeated season playing in a division outside of the BCS level in the spring. The TV networks are so ripe to pick right now it isn't even funny. ESPN's ratings are down and they had cut employees. FOX is coming out with a competitor to ESPN called FOX 1. FOX knows how to get ratings. NBC has their own all sports network now. These networks are going to need to televise something in the spring. Americans love football and would watch, in mass, a spring college football league that is entertaining. MAClike conferences are entertaining and they could sell TV rights/make money. Instead, we sit around and talk about scheduling in a way that we would benefit from in a one in a ten thousand chance. It's why we remain where we are.

[K92]

GP1 is not the only one talking about spring football. Last week on XM91 the discussion turned to future realignment. The guest (can't remember who), opined that the next move was a BCS breakaway. He said the powers.that be are.just trying to figure out how to do it and the biggest stumbling block was the issue of the NCAA basketball tournament. He thought the split was inevitable, though and that when it happens the rest of the Non-BCS conferences should play in the Spring. Host Chris Childers thought the idea was great and that there would be huge interest in a spring league.

[UA1987]

The AAC will not be a BCS conference for long. Besides, any victory over someone in that league wouldn't be seen as a BCS victory. People aren't that stupid.

The question you ask is based upon the idea that in a few years, college football is going to look like it does right now. It won't. I don't find it to be a serious question, but I'll play along. Should we schedule based upon something that almost never happens? No we shouldn't. If we have a scheduling problem, it has nothing to do with 1 for 2 or anything like that. There is a lack of vision for making programs better through good competition and increased probability of winning without scheduling all 1AA teams. BCS schools have it right. They play one 1AA team, two non BCS teams and one decent BCS team. It's a vision for winning, not some grasp at recognition that will be here today and gone tomorrow. Under Brookhart, we beat more than one BCS level team. How did that end up? Where is the recognition that bolstered recruiting?

I'll give you a better scenario. What is the one thing that could catapult a team to national recognition with all that means in revenue and recruiting? Also, this scenario falls within the world of reality for a school like UofA. Answer - A National Championship during an undefeated season playing in a division outside of the BCS level in the spring. The TV networks are so ripe to pick right now it isn't even funny. ESPN's ratings are down and they had cut employees. FOX is coming out with a competitor to ESPN called FOX 1. FOX knows how to get ratings. NBC has their own all sports network now. These networks are going to need to televise something in the spring. Americans love football and would watch, in mass, a spring college football league that is entertaining. MAClike conferences are entertaining and they could sell TV rights/make money. Instead, we sit around and talk about scheduling in a way that we would benefit from in a one in a ten thousand chance. It's why we remain where we are.

A school in our own conference that you piss on went 11-1 this year. Their only regular season loss was to Iowa. Are we that far off from Northern Illinois? Spring Major College football - nope (USFL, World Football League the new one being talked about by greasy developer types) - Nah again. What next Spring break in the Arctic? What we need is a different scheduling formula than has been used when we were at the Rubber Bowl. Simple scheduling formula - play anyone anywhere if you just play one contract game here. This would eliminate the big money teams and leave us with a very interesting schedule that is winnable - maybe all wins.

[LZIp]

A school in our own conference that you piss on went 11-1 this year. Their only regular season loss was to Iowa. Are we that far off from Northern Illinois? Spring Major College football - nope (USFL, World Football League the new one being talked about by greasy developer types) - Nah again. What next Spring break in the Arctic? What we need is a different scheduling formula than has been used when we were at the Rubber Bowl. Simple scheduling formula - play anyone anywhere if you just play one contract game here. This would eliminate the big money teams and leave us with a very interesting schedule that is winnable - maybe all wins.

I've learned just to ignore GP1's long winded post about why spring football is a viable option.

[GP1]

GP1 is not the only one talking about spring football. Last week on XM91 the discussion turned to future realignment. The guest (can't remember who), opined that the next move was a BCS breakaway. He said the powers.that be are.just trying to figure out how to do it and the biggest stumbling block was the issue of the NCAA basketball tournament. He thought the split was inevitable, though and that when it happens the rest of the Non-BCS conferences should play in the Spring. Host Chris Childers thought the idea was great and that there would be huge interest in a spring league.

Thanks for posting Keener92. A few years ago, everyone bashed me for saying there would be a split in college football between BCS and non BCS. Here we are.

The ncaa basketball tournament? People who worry about that being a hurdle worry too much. It is a fundraising event for the ncaa to operate itself. Why would those schools continue to have a basketball tournament to support a bureaucracy they all hate (90+% of the revenue from the ncaa tournament goes to run the ncaa) when they could have their own basketball tournament to line their own pockets?

ESPN televises spring football practices because people watch it and they have to televise something. It is the most popular product to put on the TV available. ESPN is a business and they know what will sell. In 1986, ABC offered the USFL in excess of $150 million to televise games in the spring. There was a market for it then, and there is an even bigger market for an entertaining spring football league now. MAClike conferences are entertaining and people would watch. It's the only way these conferences can now support their bloated "building process". Playing in the spring might be the one good idea MAClike conferences have had in years.

[legendofzippy]

Are we that far off from Northern Illinois?

Yes.

[Dr Z]

Yes.

You might be correct when it comes to our junior and senior class, but not so much with our sophomore and freshman class. So depending on time (relative), I would say 2 years. Is that far off? Not in my Zip fan career. Small example: NIU 2013 ClassAAAUA 2013 Class

Putting the BCS BS aside, I like the 2 for 1's. Any opportunity to get fans excited to come to Info is a plus IMO. Indiana is not a huge deal, but well enough known around here that people were excited to see them at Info. Nice buzz before the game...after that, well, not so much....

[UA1987]

Yes.

NIU stadium capacity - 24,000

1996 - 1998 - three wins

MAC conference affiliation

Akron 2 wins over NIU in 2005

NIU 2-10 in 2007

Think again

NIU has been great as of late. That just shows it can be done.

[GP1]

Any opportunity to get fans excited to come to Info is a plus IMO.

Instead of scheduling gimmicks, wouldn't it be much better to create a climate where people come to games because the team is good and WINNING?

Game day buzz is fun, but there has to be something after game day.

It won't be long until the possibility of bringing in BCS teams will be gone because they will have their own division. Because of that, we need to start scheduling in a manner that creates a winning program for whatever comes next.

[GP1]

You might be correct when it comes to our junior and senior class, but not so much with our sophomore and freshman class. So depending on time (relative), I would say 2 years. Is that far off? Not in my Zip fan career. Small example: NIU 2013 ClassAAAUA 2013 Class

Nice post. Are you saying going to a BCS game doesn't automatically boost your recruiting? I'm shocked to hear that because when I read MAC boards, I'm told that going to a BCS game makes your recruiting better. I'm shocked (not really) to find out the opposite is true.

[MDZip]

I don't like the 2-1's because that either means you have to find someone willing to come to your house with no return gate (and the only way the Zips can do that right now is an FCS school and playing more than one of those a year isn't viable) or you have to reduce to 5 home games a year at some point. I'd rather do the ATM, 1-1, 1-1 and FCS every year. Plus in either a 2-1 or 1-1 you have to make sure that if you get the home game in the final year, that the game is actually played, too many times the bigger names will just buy their way out. NIU would have been in the same place if they had lost an ATM game (Iowa wasn't it), and do you remember that OU was in the top 25 after beating Penn State (who turned out to ne much better than expected) before they tanked too? The ATM, 1-1, 1-1 (and those can be lower level BCS teams) I think works really well. No 2-1's any more.

[ZachTheZip]

I don't like the 2-1's because that either means you have to find someone willing to come to your house with no return gate (and the only way the Zips can do that right now is an FCS school and playing more than one of those a year isn't viable) or you have to reduce to 5 home games a year at some point. I'd rather do the ATM, 1-1, 1-1 and FCS every year. Plus in either a 2-1 or 1-1 you have to make sure that if you get the home game in the final year, that the game is actually played, too many times the bigger names will just buy their way out. NIU would have been in the same place if they had lost an ATM game (Iowa wasn't it), and do you remember that OU was in the top 25 after beating Penn State (who turned out to ne much better than expected) before they tanked too? The ATM, 1-1, 1-1 (and those can be lower level BCS teams) I think works really well. No 2-1's any more.

Can you name a single interesting opponent that would do a 1-for-1 with us?

[GP1]

Can you name a single interesting opponent that would do a 1-for-1 with us?

I don't know exactly what he means, but I think 1-1 means non BCS team. If that is the case, many of them would make the 1-1 trade. Our current schedule has an example of that.

[legendofzippy]

NIU stadium capacity - 24,000

1996 - 1998 - three wins

MAC conference affiliation

Akron 2 wins over NIU in 2005

NIU 2-10 in 2007

Think again

NIU has been great as of late. That just shows it can be done.

I didn't say it couldn't be done, but if you watched the game against them last year it wasn't even close. Based on his post-game quotes, I think Bowden was surprised how good a top MAC team can be.

Look, they went to a BCS Bowl and we didn't beat an FBS team. That's a bit of a gap.

[MDZip]

Can you name a single interesting opponent that would do a 1-for-1 with us?

I guess that depends on your version of interesting - I think we have two coming up that I would find interesting that have both agreed to a 1-1, Pitt and Iowa State, both BCS conference shools. I think you could do it with the bottom half of the BCS leagues and I'd also welcome just about anyone from any of the non-BCS leagues. Those are realistic schools to do a 1-1 (see above) and games Akron has a chance at winning. Besides none of them are scheduling Akron because of the sexy name.

[ZachTheZip]

I don't know exactly what he means, but I think 1-1 means non BCS team. If that is the case, many of them would make the 1-1 trade. Our current schedule has an example of that.

But is that team interesting? The answer is no.

[ZachTheZip]

I guess that depends on your version of interesting - I think we have two coming up that I would find interesting that have both agreed to a 1-1, Pitt and Iowa State, both BCS conference shools. I think you could do it with the bottom half of the BCS leagues and I'd also welcome just about anyone from any of the non-BCS leagues. Those are realistic schools to do a 1-1 (see above) and games Akron has a chance at winning. Besides none of them are scheduling Akron because of the sexy name.

Pitt is interesting, but I couldn't care less about Iowa State. I don't care if they're BCS or whatever.

The problem is that you can't find two 1-for-1 teams to play every season. The lower level teams won't do it because they'd rather take a beating for a paycheck and the better teams won't come here because they can find another team to pay for a home game without a return trip.

[GP1]

I'd also welcome just about anyone from any of the non-BCS leagues.

I agree completely. I don't see how Iowa State brings anything more than a Tulsa, East Carolina, Fresno State, San Jose State, etc. Pitt on the other hand is in close proximity so it may make sense for them, but they aren't going to schedule us every year.

Fans at MAClike conferences have to give up on the idea that a few scattered wins against BCS bottom feeder teams like Duke, Indiana, Iowa State, etc. are signs that MAClike schools are on the cusp of something great. Something great meaning if they just build a bigger stadium, new practice facility, better scheduling, etc. they will be just like those teams/conferences. The sooner we stop that line of thinking, the sooner we can get our programs moving in a successful direction away from the BCS insanity we can't keep up with. BCS schools are nothing but an anchor around the necks of non BCS teams. We can do so much better if we would just let ourselves break the chains.

[legendofzippy]

Pitt is interesting, but I couldn't care less about Iowa State. I don't care if they're BCS or whatever.

I get what you're saying, but do you think anyone in Iowa cares about playing Akron? It's a Big 12 team that has some nice wins in recent years, so if a team like that got on our schedule we should support it and hope they do the same.