Creampuff schedule

[McGopherFan]

Really Cool

With the new stadium sold out home crowds won't be an issue for the time being. As far as generating more interest I can see your point but you also have to ask whether losing (perhaps badly) to bigger schools will generate more interest than beating small schools?

How about tagging on one extra game at the end of the season. Get a southern team up here to play the Saturday before or after Thanksgiving. See if the swampers are really a football team or if it really is just basketball on grass.

I'd like the Gophs to get a tune up, and midlevel game in before moving into the Big Ten. And finish the season with the Blizzard Bowl. Let's see how tough the ACC or SEC teams are at 40 degreees or colder. I'd bet not a single southern team would do it, not for all the money in the world.

 

[Mase]

Most people ripping the gophers non-conference schedule have no idea how college football works. Which really comes as no suprise since most people in the Twin Cities (other than the diehards like us on this board) don't know much about college football.

With the exception of the perennial top ten teams, nearly every team in the top conferences (B12, B10, SEC, ACC, PAC10) plays an easy non-conference schedule. Did anyone see who the mighty Florida State played this past weekend?? I rest my case.

Wrong. Minnesota is #1.

 

[stevedave23]

Wrong. Minnesota is #1.

What am I wrong about (other than I meant Florida not FSU)? I never said Minnesota played tough non-conference games. I said that nearly every team in the top conferences does the same thing.

 

[Mase]

What am I wrong about (other than I meant Florida not FSU)? I never said Minnesota played tough non-conference games. I said that nearly every team in the top conferences does the same thing.

Your post implies that the Gophers non conference schedule is on a even keel with other programs and it's not.

 

[Schnoodler]

I've been studying this for an hour or so. And I don't think there's a lot of difference. The one major difference is that most programs play one decent opponent in their NC games. Outside of that it's pretty much the same selection of creampuffs that we complain about.

Using Sangarins SOS rankings as the measure.

Considering all four NC games we did have the creampuffiest schedule. We averaged a 108. The average in the B10 was 94.

If you factor out the toughest opponent our worst three average was 119. The B10 worst three average was 114. We were 7th in the B10.

The other part of what I learned is that there was no counter intuitive findings. In other words with very few exceptions a tougher schedule did lead to a worse record.

So basically replacing one cream puff with a decent opponent makes us just like everyone else. Going beyond that puts us at a disadvantage to everyone else.

 

[stevedave23]

Your post implies that the Gophers non conference schedule is on a even keel with other programs and it's not.

That's wasn't my point but I can't control how you interpret my post. My original point was that many people who are critical of the gophers non-conference schedule do not realize that most teams in the top conferences play smaller, generally inferior schools for their non-conference games.

I think most casual college football fans living in the twin cities turn on the tv on Saturday's and see non-conference games like USC vs. Ohio State and Michigan vs. Oregon and then wonder why the gophers don't play teams like this. The reason? We're not Ohio State or Michigan. Some day I would love for the gophers to be as consistantly good as Michigan or Ohio State. We're not there right now and I don't think that getting beat (or blown out) by top ranked teams is the way you get there. Personally, I believe that the gophers need to do it the Wisconsin or Northwestern way if they want to go to better bowl games including the Rose Bowl. That's just my opinion. You are welcome to disagree with it, that's what these message boards are for.

 

[Gold Rush]

I agree with stevedave23 in his line of reasoning.

The trick to scheduling is to bring in some teams just a little worse than you so you get the win against the best possible teams. That isn't always an easy thing to do!

I like the teams that we are bringing in in the next few years, but I don't have a problem with a couple creampuffs each year that are tune-up games, either. I would like the NCAA to step in and force its members to play two games vs. BCS schools in a conference vs. conference matchup - sort of what happens in the ACC-Big Ten basketball matchups. This way you would get one "good" home game and one tough road game each year against an evenly matched team in an opposing conference. For example, if the Gophers finished 6th in the Big Ten, we would play at the #6 Big 12 team and get the #6 Pac Ten team at home the next season. Two years later, we would swap and play different conferences. It would be a lot more fun for the fans than what we have right now and I imagine the TV ratings would be a lot better, too.

 

[Goldmember]

I've been studying this for an hour or so. And I don't think there's a lot of difference. The one major difference is that most programs play one decent opponent in their NC games. Outside of that it's pretty much the same selection of creampuffs that we complain about.

Using Sangarins SOS rankings as the measure.

Considering all four NC games we did have the creampuffiest schedule. We averaged a 108. The average in the B10 was 94.

If you factor out the toughest opponent our worst three average was 119. The B10 worst three average was 114. We were 7th in the B10.

The other part of what I learned is that there was no counter intuitive findings. In other words with very few exceptions a tougher schedule did lead to a worse record.

So basically replacing one cream puff with a decent opponent makes us just like everyone else. Going beyond that puts us at a disadvantage to everyone else.

Not to make this overly-scientific, but the ESPN article is using data that is much more appropriate to the discussion.

Sagarin Rankings are not a good measure of wheather or not a team is a "tough opponent" for scheduling purposes. The data that you are using could not possibly lead to any counter-intuitive findings (assuming you used Sagarin's current rankings). Sagarin's rankings already account for what has transpired on the field this year. For instance, Appalacian State's Sagain rating in 2007 was drastically improved by beating Michigan last year. But, the game was still a cupcake game for Michigan. Using the data as you have above ... the App. State game would appear to have been a STRONG opponent, but that strength was based largely on the fact that they beat a good Michigan team.

Also, I think what people usually mean when they say "cupcakes" is "uncompelling opponents". No one complained about the series with Colorado State, even though they were not a great team in 2005, and they are not in a BCS conference. Toledo had a better Sagarin rating than Colorado State in 2005, but Toledo would not have drawn nearly as much attention from fans because they are a MAC team.

 

[Schnoodler]

I would disagree.

 

[stevedave23]

I would like the NCAA to step in and force its members to play two games vs. BCS schools in a conference vs. conference matchup - sort of what happens in the ACC-Big Ten basketball matchups. This way you would get one "good" home game and one tough road game each year against an evenly matched team in an opposing conference. For example, if the Gophers finished 6th in the Big Ten, we would play at the #6 Big 12 team and get the #6 Pac Ten team at home the next season. Two years later, we would swap and play different conferences. It would be a lot more fun for the fans than what we have right now and I imagine the TV ratings would be a lot better, too.

I wouldn't mind this. In fact, I would love to play more competitive non-conference teams...if that's what everyone else did. I just don't think it's very smart to play teams like Florida and Oregon every year while Wisconsin plays Maine and The Citadel.