Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

Has decided to backtrack on their 9 conference game schedule narrative. 4 cupcakes a year is just so much fun! Especially the one at the end of the season so they can rest their starters. Glorified bye.

It’s the media’s fault more than their fault, they’re just taking advantage of the SEC bias the media has. Other conferences should’ve woken up sooner and made their conference schedule 8 games also.

Do teams get an increase in strength of schedule for playing nine conference games instead of eight? If SOS is calculated on an average basis, then there is really no advantage for all conferences from a playoff eligibility perspective, ex-SEC, to play nine conference games.

Gotta love ESPN headline "SEC going to 8 game slate in 24" LOL as if they ever left it! Bunch of weenies!

alxtw wrote:Do teams get an increase in strength of schedule for playing nine conference games instead of eight? If SOS is calculated on an average basis, then there is really no advantage for all conferences from a playoff eligibility perspective, ex-SEC, to play nine conference games.

As far as SoS, there's a significant nose dive in schedule strength with the end of season cupcakes, but it's a guaranteed win, and it looks good when the playoff committee is trying to decide between a one loss SEC team, or a 2 loss team from another conference that plays 9 conference games. As for the advantage to playing 9 conference games vs 8, there really is no advantage to playing 9 until SoS truly matters.

I do understand the benefits of both models, but we also have to remember that all SEC would have to cancel a lot of OOC games if they go to 9 conference games, even if it means stronger schedules.

Why is anyone shocked? They aren’t looking to make things harder on themselves. Unlike the pac, who today I heard a media member making the case for us to play a 10 game conference schedule. WTF. That would eliminate at least 1-2 bowl teams every year, losing the conference even more money. 4 easy games a year, = more money for the conference as a whole.

buckmarkduck wrote:Why is anyone shocked? They aren’t looking to make things harder on themselves. Unlike the pac, who today I heard a media member making the case for us to play a 10 game conference schedule. WTF. That would eliminate at least 1-2 bowl teams every year, losing the conference even more money. 4 easy games a year, = more money for the conference as a whole.

It's not even about easy games, it's guaranteed additional losses for the conference. 9 conference games, is 54 conference games which is a guaranteed 54 losses, which tanks SOS. On top of that, it's less TV money. In a 12 team conference, each additional conference games removes 6 games from the conference package as a whole. It's absolutely insane that conferences have different setups, they are literally on different playing fields when it comes to SOS and what they can offer in a tv deal. It's a joke.

pudgejeff wrote:

buckmarkduck wrote:Why is anyone shocked? They aren’t looking to make things harder on themselves. Unlike the pac, who today I heard a media member making the case for us to play a 10 game conference schedule. WTF. That would eliminate at least 1-2 bowl teams every year, losing the conference even more money. 4 easy games a year, = more money for the conference as a whole.

It's not even about easy games, it's guaranteed additional losses for the conference. 9 conference games, is 54 conference games which is a guaranteed 54 losses, which tanks SOS. On top of that, it's less TV money. In a 12 team conference, each additional conference games removes 6 games from the conference package as a whole. It's absolutely insane that conferences have different setups, they are literally on different playing fields when it comes to SOS and what they can offer in a tv deal. It's a joke.

You're right. Add to that the fact that the media always starts with 6-8 SEC teams ranked in the top 25 so they pretty much are guaranteed one or two teams make the playoffs due to their weak schedules. "BUT we play in the SEC!" is always factored into their losses as well. A joke indeed.

nogerO wrote:

pudgejeff wrote:

buckmarkduck wrote:Why is anyone shocked? They aren’t looking to make things harder on themselves. Unlike the pac, who today I heard a media member making the case for us to play a 10 game conference schedule. WTF. That would eliminate at least 1-2 bowl teams every year, losing the conference even more money. 4 easy games a year, = more money for the conference as a whole.

It's not even about easy games, it's guaranteed additional losses for the conference. 9 conference games, is 54 conference games which is a guaranteed 54 losses, which tanks SOS. On top of that, it's less TV money. In a 12 team conference, each additional conference games removes 6 games from the conference package as a whole. It's absolutely insane that conferences have different setups, they are literally on different playing fields when it comes to SOS and what they can offer in a tv deal. It's a joke.

You're right. Add to that the fact that the media always starts with 6-8 SEC teams ranked in the top 25 so they pretty much are guaranteed one or two teams make the playoffs due to their weak schedules. "BUT we play in the SEC!" is always factored into their losses as well. A joke indeed.

Strength of schedule is the most ignored and irrelevant stat in college football, it’s crazy so many in the PAC-12 think it matters. For example if during week 1, a 6th ranked Oregon team loses a close game at a 3rd ranked Ohio State and a 7th ranked Tennessee beats Samford at home, who is going to be ranked higher going into week 2, Oregon or Tennessee? I get the SEC is soft with scheduling, but can anyone really blame them when the media and playoff committee lets them get away with it? Ironically the SEC soft scheduling is not only bad for the sports but it’s a terrible business model, if there was a universal scheduling that guaranteed a lot of good games every week the sport would do a lot better with revenue. Outside of the hardcore fan nobody is tuning into Alabama hosting the Citadel. It continually amazes me how incompetent so many “leaders” in college football are.

OregonFan4Life wrote:

nogerO wrote:

pudgejeff wrote:

buckmarkduck wrote:Why is anyone shocked? They aren’t looking to make things harder on themselves. Unlike the pac, who today I heard a media member making the case for us to play a 10 game conference schedule. WTF. That would eliminate at least 1-2 bowl teams every year, losing the conference even more money. 4 easy games a year, = more money for the conference as a whole.

It's not even about easy games, it's guaranteed additional losses for the conference. 9 conference games, is 54 conference games which is a guaranteed 54 losses, which tanks SOS. On top of that, it's less TV money. In a 12 team conference, each additional conference games removes 6 games from the conference package as a whole. It's absolutely insane that conferences have different setups, they are literally on different playing fields when it comes to SOS and what they can offer in a tv deal. It's a joke.

You're right. Add to that the fact that the media always starts with 6-8 SEC teams ranked in the top 25 so they pretty much are guaranteed one or two teams make the playoffs due to their weak schedules. "BUT we play in the SEC!" is always factored into their losses as well. A joke indeed.

Strength of schedule is the most ignored and irrelevant stat in college football, it’s crazy so many in the PAC-12 think it matters. For example if during week 1, a 6th ranked Oregon team loses a close game at a 3rd ranked Ohio State and a 7th ranked Tennessee beats Samford at home, who is going to be ranked higher going into week 2, Oregon or Tennessee? I get the SEC is soft with scheduling, but can anyone really blame them when the media and playoff committee lets them get away with it? Ironically the SEC soft scheduling is not only bad for the sports but it’s a terrible business model, if there was a universal scheduling that guaranteed a lot of good games every week the sport would do a lot better with revenue. Outside of the hardcore fan nobody is tuning into Alabama hosting the Citadel. It continually amazes me how incompetent so many “leaders” in college football are.

Yep. Full stadium, concessions, parking and making a ton of money is a terrible way to operate all right

nogerO wrote:

OregonFan4Life wrote:

nogerO wrote:

pudgejeff wrote:

buckmarkduck wrote:Why is anyone shocked? They aren’t looking to make things harder on themselves. Unlike the pac, who today I heard a media member making the case for us to play a 10 game conference schedule. WTF. That would eliminate at least 1-2 bowl teams every year, losing the conference even more money. 4 easy games a year, = more money for the conference as a whole.

It's not even about easy games, it's guaranteed additional losses for the conference. 9 conference games, is 54 conference games which is a guaranteed 54 losses, which tanks SOS. On top of that, it's less TV money. In a 12 team conference, each additional conference games removes 6 games from the conference package as a whole. It's absolutely insane that conferences have different setups, they are literally on different playing fields when it comes to SOS and what they can offer in a tv deal. It's a joke.

You're right. Add to that the fact that the media always starts with 6-8 SEC teams ranked in the top 25 so they pretty much are guaranteed one or two teams make the playoffs due to their weak schedules. "BUT we play in the SEC!" is always factored into their losses as well. A joke indeed.

Strength of schedule is the most ignored and irrelevant stat in college football, it’s crazy so many in the PAC-12 think it matters. For example if during week 1, a 6th ranked Oregon team loses a close game at a 3rd ranked Ohio State and a 7th ranked Tennessee beats Samford at home, who is going to be ranked higher going into week 2, Oregon or Tennessee? I get the SEC is soft with scheduling, but can anyone really blame them when the media and playoff committee lets them get away with it? Ironically the SEC soft scheduling is not only bad for the sports but it’s a terrible business model, if there was a universal scheduling that guaranteed a lot of good games every week the sport would do a lot better with revenue. Outside of the hardcore fan nobody is tuning into Alabama hosting the Citadel. It continually amazes me how incompetent so many “leaders” in college football are.

Yep. Full stadium, concessions, parking and making a ton of money is a terrible way to operate all right

I feel like it was pretty simple to understand the business model he was talking about was college football as a sport, not how well a singular schools stadium and concessions do, thanks for the solid input into the conversation though.

pudgejeff wrote:

nogerO wrote:

OregonFan4Life wrote:

nogerO wrote:

pudgejeff wrote:

buckmarkduck wrote:Why is anyone shocked? They aren’t looking to make things harder on themselves. Unlike the pac, who today I heard a media member making the case for us to play a 10 game conference schedule. WTF. That would eliminate at least 1-2 bowl teams every year, losing the conference even more money. 4 easy games a year, = more money for the conference as a whole.

It's not even about easy games, it's guaranteed additional losses for the conference. 9 conference games, is 54 conference games which is a guaranteed 54 losses, which tanks SOS. On top of that, it's less TV money. In a 12 team conference, each additional conference games removes 6 games from the conference package as a whole. It's absolutely insane that conferences have different setups, they are literally on different playing fields when it comes to SOS and what they can offer in a tv deal. It's a joke.

You're right. Add to that the fact that the media always starts with 6-8 SEC teams ranked in the top 25 so they pretty much are guaranteed one or two teams make the playoffs due to their weak schedules. "BUT we play in the SEC!" is always factored into their losses as well. A joke indeed.

Strength of schedule is the most ignored and irrelevant stat in college football, it’s crazy so many in the PAC-12 think it matters. For example if during week 1, a 6th ranked Oregon team loses a close game at a 3rd ranked Ohio State and a 7th ranked Tennessee beats Samford at home, who is going to be ranked higher going into week 2, Oregon or Tennessee? I get the SEC is soft with scheduling, but can anyone really blame them when the media and playoff committee lets them get away with it? Ironically the SEC soft scheduling is not only bad for the sports but it’s a terrible business model, if there was a universal scheduling that guaranteed a lot of good games every week the sport would do a lot better with revenue. Outside of the hardcore fan nobody is tuning into Alabama hosting the Citadel. It continually amazes me how incompetent so many “leaders” in college football are.

Yep. Full stadium, concessions, parking and making a ton of money is a terrible way to operate all right

I feel like it was pretty simple to understand the business model he was talking about was college football as a sport, not how well a singular schools stadium and concessions do, thanks for the solid input into the conversation though.

I feel like it was pretty simple to understand the original topic. Thanks for playing...

Clearly I need to be more present here as this is an other guys topic.

With that said thought I was pissed! I’m over the stupid 8 game schedule and it essentially boiled down to the money. ESPN wouldn’t renegotiate for those extra SEC games. Hopefully they will make the right decision next time

Bud Lee wrote:Clearly I need to be more present here as this is an other guys topic.

With that said thought I was pissed! I’m over the stupid 8 game schedule and it essentially boiled down to the money. ESPN wouldn’t renegotiate for those extra SEC games. Hopefully they will make the right decision next time

The way things are at ESPN we will see if there will be next time I guess.