to re-examine scheduling of future OOC games?

[ConferenceChamp]

There are plenty of things to question about the status of the Gopher football program, if one is so inclined.

Most "issues" appear to be receiving their due attention on this board.


But as the summer anticipation of opening TCF Bank Stadium has given way to the inauspicious reality of another Gopher football season this fall (replete with hiccups, speed bumps and all), I am left to question the wisdom/sanity of scheduling perennial out-of-conference heavyweights, such as Texas, Southern Cal, etc. for the upcoming decade.

Is 4th rated Iowa being penalized for scheduling UNI, Arkansas St., Iowa St. and Arizona? This is a very reasonable OOC schedule. Heck, they beat the first three teams by a combined 14 points. Iowa didn't need any more of a challenge than what they had.

Is 12th ranked Penn St. limiting its 2009 potential by having scheduled Temple, Akron, Syracuse, Eastern Illinois as its OOC foes? I don't think so. In fact, just the opposite. PSU recruits Philadelphia, NE Ohio, and western New York state. Their schedule-maker is a genious!

Meanwhile, look at Illinois, with its OOC schedule that includes tough Missouri and Fresno St. teams, along with 5th ranked Cincinnati. They could have used a somewhat lighter OOC schedule, I would dare to say.

Tim Brewster is prolly figuring out that the Big 11 Conference schedule can be quite challenging, despite what the national media pundits have to say about the competitiveness of our conference. Brewster does not appear to be doing himself, or his successor(s), any favors down the road, by loading up on the Gopher OOC schedule, even if it is just one heavyweight per season. The Gophers see enough heavyweights every year, without adding Texas and Southern Cal.

Not sure if it is false bravado, or what? JMHO...

 

[thailleagle]

I'd rather watch the Gophers play Cal on ESPN then Kent State on BTN.......

 

[Ole]

Completely disagree with your take, though I respect your presentation of it all.
We need games that put us on the map, for recruiting, for player development, for fan interest, and for a chance at national respect.
Nobody wants to see a bunch of patsies on the schedule, that doesn't bring anything to the program.
This year was a buzzsaw, Cal was at it's hottest when we played them, Syracuse was an unknown, Air force is proving to be a quality Mtn West team, SDSU remains to be seen. Looking at future schedules we have a nicer mix of big time marquee matchups and lesser opponents that will look one step above Iowa's schedule this year, which will pay off when the program improves. Bottom line if you want to be the best, beat the best.

 

[Noonan]

I agree with Ole. As long as we can become bowl eligible, it's our conference games that will count in the end (unless you're trying for the National Championship). If we go 3-1, or even 2-2, in non-conference play, we can still go to a New Year's day bowl with a top 3 finish in the Big Ten.

I like how Brew treats the non-conference schedule as a recruiting tool and a way to prepare his team for tough games. The goal is to win the Big Ten (let's not start another riot here, I agree we have a lot of work to do).

 

[chi-town gopher]

There are plenty of things to question about the status of the Gopher football program, if one is so inclined.

Most "issues" appear to be receiving their due attention on this board.


But as the summer anticipation of opening TCF Bank Stadium has given way to the inauspicious reality of another Gopher football season this fall (replete with hiccups, speed bumps and all), I am left to question the wisdom/sanity of scheduling perennial out-of-conference heavyweights, such as Texas, Southern Cal, etc. for the upcoming decade.

Is 4th rated Iowa being penalized for scheduling UNI, Arkansas St., Iowa St. and Arizona? This is a very reasonable OOC schedule. Heck, they beat the first three teams by a combined 14 points. Iowa didn't need any more of a challenge than what they had.

Is 12th ranked Penn St. limiting its 2009 potential by having scheduled Temple, Akron, Syracuse, Eastern Illinois as its OOC foes? I don't think so. In fact, just the opposite. PSU recruits Philadelphia, NE Ohio, and western New York state. Their schedule-maker is a genious!

Meanwhile, look at Illinois, with its OOC schedule that includes tough Missouri and Fresno St. teams, along with 5th ranked Cincinnati. They could have used a somewhat lighter OOC schedule, I would dare to say.

Tim Brewster is prolly figuring out that the Big 11 Conference schedule can be quite challenging, despite what the national media pundits have to say about the competitiveness of our conference. Brewster does not appear to be doing himself, or his successor(s), any favors down the road, by loading up on the Gopher OOC schedule, even if it is just one heavyweight per season. The Gophers see enough heavyweights every year, without adding Texas and Southern Cal.

Not sure if it is false bravado, or what? JMHO...

I'm guessing the Illinois AD had no idea that Cinci would be a top 5 team this year.

Hindsight is 20/20, but you have to remember that most of these games are scheduled years in advance when it is hard to determine how good a team like Cinci, Arizona, or Cal will be in a given year. I'm not sure there is a huge difference between Illinois, MN, and Iowa's schedule when you are looking at it a few years in advance. I think there are two ways to set your non-conference schedule that will make fans, recruits, and pollsters happy:

-The 2009 Gopher schedule route: Play 2 teams from a BCS conference, a solid team from the MWC, WAC, or Conf USA, and an FCS team close to your school.

or

-The OSU route: Play one juggernaut, 2 non BCS teams, and a local FCS team.

There are pros and cons to each approach, and that is why I like Brew's approach of rotating between both types of schedule. Some years the first approach will give the team a ton of challenges, and other years it won't. As long as they don't revert to playing 3 MAC teams and an FCS team I'll be happy.

 

[GoAUpher]

There are plenty of things to question about the status of the Gopher football program, if one is so inclined.

Most "issues" appear to be receiving their due attention on this board.


But as the summer anticipation of opening TCF Bank Stadium has given way to the inauspicious reality of another Gopher football season this fall (replete with hiccups, speed bumps and all), I am left to question the wisdom/sanity of scheduling perennial out-of-conference heavyweights, such as Texas, Southern Cal, etc. for the upcoming decade.

Is 4th rated Iowa being penalized for scheduling UNI, Arkansas St., Iowa St. and Arizona? This is a very reasonable OOC schedule. Heck, they beat the first three teams by a combined 14 points. Iowa didn't need any more of a challenge than what they had.

Is 12th ranked Penn St. limiting its 2009 potential by having scheduled Temple, Akron, Syracuse, Eastern Illinois as its OOC foes? I don't think so. In fact, just the opposite. PSU recruits Philadelphia, NE Ohio, and western New York state. Their schedule-maker is a genious!

Meanwhile, look at Illinois, with its OOC schedule that includes tough Missouri and Fresno St. teams, along with 5th ranked Cincinnati. They could have used a somewhat lighter OOC schedule, I would dare to say.

Tim Brewster is prolly figuring out that the Big 11 Conference schedule can be quite challenging, despite what the national media pundits have to say about the competitiveness of our conference. Brewster does not appear to be doing himself, or his successor(s), any favors down the road, by loading up on the Gopher OOC schedule, even if it is just one heavyweight per season. The Gophers see enough heavyweights every year, without adding Texas and Southern Cal.

Not sure if it is false bravado, or what? JMHO...

While I disagree, I think your overall point isn't without merit. I can certainly see why some prefer an easier schedule. However, I'd note that we played cupcakes year after year and it did nothing but bring us to a mediocre bowl. I'm not sure where removing USC and adding in a creampuff in the next 2 seasons would do anything more. Its a matter of perspective and I happen to fall into the camp of folks who'd prefer quality non-conference opponents. They make for a better home schedule and offer some nice road trips IMO.

However, I do have to disagree with the two points I bolded above.

In fact, the UNI/Ark State games are holding Iowa back. They are the reason the pollsters have them ranked lower which hurts their BCS standing. The reason Iowa is as high in the BCS as they are is because 1) Arizona is better then expected in the polls which bumps up Iowa and 2) Iowa has the toughest B10 schedule (@ PSU, @UW, @MSU, @OSU) and has won all the big games.

For PSU, there are 4 other one loss teams are ahead of them in the BCS standings (USC @ #5, LSU @ #9, Oregon @ #10, GTech @ #11) despite the fact that PSU's lone loss is to Iowa. A big part of that is the fact that besides Iowa, PSU has played 1 above average team (Michigan), one average team (Gophers), and a bunch of below average to cupcake teams. PSU would be in a better spot had they played and beaten a better non-conference schedule.

 

[charlesbenjamin7]

Totally agree with your post, ConferenceChamp. It makes absolutely no sense to schedule automatic losses.

 

[mplsbadger]

I agree with Ole. As long as we can become bowl eligible, it's our conference games that will count in the end (unless you're trying for the National Championship). If we go 3-1, or even 2-2, in non-conference play, we can still go to a New Year's day bowl with a top 3 finish in the Big Ten.

I like how Brew treats the non-conference schedule as a recruiting tool and a way to prepare his team for tough games. The goal is to win the Big Ten (let's not start another riot here, I agree we have a lot of work to do).

Totally agree.

 

[PlayHosea]

Are they automatic losses? Maybe. But if you ever want to be the opponent that other teams look at as an "automatic loss" for them, you have to be able to compete with and beat those teams. You can't elevate your program beating a bunch of nobodys.

 

[GopherBeef]

I can see the point of the original post, but I really like the fact that we are bringing in top teams. I think the current set-up, with one national power, one lower BCS school, one good non-BCS school, and a local FCS school is an ideal mix. Bringing in Cal, USC, Texas etc. Guarantees that we will get national exposure, and if we could find a way to win that game, it could be one of the biggest stories in college football for the following week(s).

One danger in scheduling some of these teams years in advance is we don't know how good they will be when the game date finally arrives. On the years we play Texas, we also play Colorado State, a Mountain West team that could be very dangerous in things fall their way.

The only thing I would change is to have the game with the FCS school earlier in the schedule. One thing that I think has hurt us this year is we have not had a game where we were comfortably ahead and could then play some of the younger players and try new things.

Some complain about playing the local FCS schools because we have nothing to gain. I can see the point of that, but if given the choice between SDSU and NDSU or some FCS school that nobody has heard of, I would definitely choose the local option. Plus, it creates a lot of interest in the western part of MN, an area that traditionally has been apathetic toward the U.

One last thing-it is amazing to me how far out games are scheduled. We already have Navy on the schedule for 2019 and 2020!

 

[RedPoo]

I'm in full agreement with the folks who support the tougher NCs, specifically for the reason that they bring great exposure to the program and don't count towards our final conference standing. I'd rather watch us give USC a game than see us walk all over Directional Louisiana any day.

That said, I've been giving a similar issue a little thought lately for different reasons (and am about to go slightly off-topic). This season could be an ugly one for the BCS, with the possibility of TCU or Boise being left out, an undefeated Cincy missing a shot at the title, etc. I have a question off that...short of a playoff, what kinds of steps might be taken to allow these 'mid major' teams with good seasons to have a better shot at big games? And at what point along these potential steps do major conference teams start cutting down the quality of opponent the schedule?

I'm a bit curious since the day Boise State plays for the national title with a schedule like the one they have this year is the day I stop supporting the tough NC schedule, and write a letter to Jim Delaney asking if we can cut the conference schedule down to 4 games.

 

[thailleagle]

One thing that I think has hurt us this year is we have not had a game where we were comfortably ahead and could then play some of the younger players and try new things.

Purdue 35-13.......

I don't think Brewster knows when to do it because even last year when we were blowing Florida-Atlantic out we still had our Starters in. 30-3 (with a final of 37-3) against a Sun Belt team was more then enough to warrant sending in backups.......

 

[Bayfieldgopher]

Here is the question? Is playing a goliath like Texas and USC, and making a bowl more difficult, better than an automatic W and an easier path to another game and 15 more practices. Which is more beneficial to the team?

IMO, it really doesn't matter. What counts most is having top caliber and well coached players. That has been the problem. Absent that, I would rather see a softer schedule and increase our chance of getting to a bowl.

 

[GopherBeef]

Purdue 35-13.......

Point taken, but that was the 6th game of the year. I am talking more about having a game prior to the conference season where we can work younger guys in and work on different things.

As for Florida Atlantic last year, I did not watch the game. But, coming off of a 1-11 season I would guess that the coaches may not have been all that comfortable letting off the gas.

 

[thailleagle]

Point taken, but that was the 6th game of the year. I am talking more about having a game prior to the conference season where we can work younger guys in and work on different things.

As for Florida Atlantic last year, I did not watch the game. But, coming off of a 1-11 season I would guess that the coaches may not have been all that comfortable letting off the gas.

If it weren't 37-3 with less then 6 minutes to go in the 4th then I would agree.......

All that did was let me know Brewster still wasn't confident.......

 

[Rick Mons]

An Historical Perspective

I joined this board about 6 or 7 years ago. Back then, more folks were complaining about the lack of serious competition in the non-conference games and calling them essentially "you-can't-win" games. That is, we played teams that weren't generally considered competitive so if we won it was "so what" and if we lost it was "I can't believe we lost to that team" And another frequent complaint was that the season ticket holders had to pay "outrageous" fees for "substandard" games. (A similar complaint is being discussed on the Basketball Board right now.)

When Mason was on the ropes in his last year, lots of folks who were calling for his termination also said that they hoped the "new coach" (unknown at that time) wouldn't settle for the "you-can't-win" games.

When Brewster was hired, he quickly let it be known that he wanted to schedule some teams with higher reputations for the off-season. In those heady days, a clear majority of folks on the board saw that as a very good change. As the schedules began to take shape, it sure seemed to me that the general consensus on the board was that scheduling teams with better reputations was preferred. Maybe the actual naysayers were just lurking but based upon comments it was pretty clear that the changes were well received.

As many are seeing it's going to take time to attract talent and then to coach that talent, I sense that the clamoring for a more rigorous schedule has waned and I sense the sentiment on the board has changed.

IMO, it really comes down to timing. Scheduling stiffer competition may be just the right step if we make the strides that Brewster has promised. Or a colossal mistake if our talent and coaching falls short.

When you come down to it, it's a matter of how much confidence you have in Brewster and how risk-averse you are. There are some real benefits by playing premier teams - but I still recall the feeling of futility when teams like Nebraska (a powerhouse at the time) rolled over us (56-0 in '90 and 48-0 in '89).

Since I'm not ready to bail on Brewster and am willing to take some risk, I'll go with the schedules that are currently planned.

 

[Hates Monikers]

As many are seeing it's going to take time to attract talent and then to coach that talent, I sense that the clamoring for a more rigorous schedule has waned and I sense the sentiment on the board has changed.

Not based on the comments posted on this thread, or any of the others on this topic that pop up about monthly. It seems to me a large majority like the idea of USC and Texas coming in. Further, which game will attract more fans to TCF Bank Stadium next year: USC or Northern Illinois?

IMO, it really comes down to timing. Scheduling stiffer competition may be just the right step if we make the strides that Brewster has promised. Or a colossal mistake if our talent and coaching falls short. When you come down to it, it's a matter of how much confidence you have in Brewster and how risk-averse you are ... I still recall the feeling of futility when teams like Nebraska (a powerhouse at the time) rolled over us (56-0 in '90 and 48-0 in '89).

Agreed. Consider that you (usually) have to schedule those games out a few years. If, at any given time, we're afriad that we're going to get beat 56-0 four or five years down the road, then we know we're on the wrong track and we need to change coaches -- whoever the coach is at that time. You may get to that game and regret it, but when it's time to schedule it, you better have some confidence in your leadership.

 

[Clyde Tester]

Are they automatic losses? Maybe. But if you ever want to be the opponent that other teams look at as an "automatic loss" for them, you have to be able to compete with and beat those teams. You can't elevate your program beating a bunch of nobodys.

This. At some point a program has to be able to win some of these tough non-conference matchups. A win against an upper-tier team in the non-conference can be an amazing springboard to a great season. Wins against four cupcakes are typically springboards to nothing more than the pizza-pizza bowl - they don't help recruiting or talent development. To be a big boy we have to play with the big boys.

 

[Gold Rush]

Playing with the "big boys"

I don't think the tougher schedule this year made us any better of a team
than if we had scheduled 4 easy game. The old "this will prepare us for the
Big Ten" argument is blown when you see Iowa and Penn St.'s non-conference
schedule and ours.

Maybe sometimes if you are really struggling paying the bills you need to schedule
one of the big boys to come in so you can fill up the seats. Right now, that isn't
an issue, either.

I do not think we gain anything from scheduling a team that will hand it to us and give
us a pretty bad loss. If we played USC right now, it would probably be an ugly game. You risk
more injuries and you just might get embarrassed pretty bad. I for one do not look
forward to seeing the Gophers getting pasted by a nonconference team and I do not
know of too many people who do!

It all depends on where you are as a program. As you get better, you can gradually
improve the quality of the competition. If we get up to a level where Ohio St. or Iowa
are at, then a USC might make some sense. I thought playing Air Force and Syracuse
were perfect games to schedule for us - they were entertaining games where we were
fairly evenly matched.

If Brewster thinks this will help him with recruiting and make us better in the long-term
then that would be a good enough reason for me. He needs to keep in mind though
that his job is going to be on the line in the very near future, if it isn't already. He
will need to start showing some positive results very soon. He will be the one to get
tossed in a year or two if he doesn't start winning more games.....

 

[Schnoodler]

I like this schedule. I hope to have more like it. i think we have to keep in mind this is done with a long view. It wasn't necessarily to help us this year. At some point if Brew keeps bringing in the talent level he is we'll be a perennial top 25 team. These good teams won't be that much better than us if at all. A loss will hardly hurt us but a win will help us considerably. Plus i do think it makes the team better. But thats really a multi year thing too. it's the experience you get from the games and the mind set that will eventually pay off.

 

[dlw4gophers]

This is easy. As a fan, would I rather watch us play Texas, Cal. and USC or play schools that I know we will win., I want to see the top schools come in here and play. It's not like our entire OOC schecule is brutal. If we loose one or two OOC games and go 8-0 in the Big ten, we will still go to the Rose Bowl. Way to go Brew, I like what you have done with the schedule and I like what you are building for the future of Gopher Nation. Keep it up and lets beat MSU.

 

[GoAUpher]

If Brewster thinks this will help him with recruiting and make us better in the long-term then that would be a good enough reason for me. He needs to keep in mind though
that his job is going to be on the line in the very near future, if it isn't already. He
will need to start showing some positive results very soon. He will be the one to get
tossed in a year or two if he doesn't start winning more games.....

Something tells me he was aware of the risks in scheduling USC for years 4 and 5 of his time here. This isn't rocket science and he made the choice to schedule these games anyway when he could have gone with cupcakes to pad his record and play it safe. I have a lot of respect for coaches/schools that are willing to challenge themselves rather than play it safe.

 

[Goldmember]

With the BCS formulas more appropriately accounting for how a team has arriveved at thier record (unlike the polls-which essentially order teams based on thier record), playing decent OOC opponents makes more sense than it used to.

And if Minnesota loses to USC next year everyone will have expected it. But if they win it's thee story in sports for a week. So far, 4 ot of 5 years USC drops a game or two to an opponent they should not have.

To maintain a good brand, the Gophers should never agree to a road game against a WAC, MAC or Sunblet opponent without 2 home games in return. The deal with MTSU was completely insane - and the 2011 home schedule is a yawner because of it.

 

[alpinegopher]

I can see the point of the original post, but I really like the fact that we are bringing in top teams. I think the current set-up, with one national power, one lower BCS school, one good non-BCS school, and a local FCS school is an ideal mix. Bringing in Cal, USC, Texas etc. Guarantees that we will get national exposure, and if we could find a way to win that game, it could be one of the biggest stories in college football for the following week(s).

One danger in scheduling some of these teams years in advance is we don't know how good they will be when the game date finally arrives. On the years we play Texas, we also play Colorado State, a Mountain West team that could be very dangerous in things fall their way.

The only thing I would change is to have the game with the FCS school earlier in the schedule. One thing that I think has hurt us this year is we have not had a game where we were comfortably ahead and could then play some of the younger players and try new things.

Some complain about playing the local FCS schools because we have nothing to gain. I can see the point of that, but if given the choice between SDSU and NDSU or some FCS school that nobody has heard of, I would definitely choose the local option. Plus, it creates a lot of interest in the western part of MN, an area that traditionally has been apathetic toward the U.

One last thing-it is amazing to me how far out games are scheduled. We already have Navy on the schedule for 2019 and 2020!

It looks like the FCS games will now be in the first part of the season. The reason they have been mixed in during the BT season is because the conference schedule was set before the NCAA allowed schools to play 12 games. FCS schools were the only ones open to play then for the most part. I agree that will be a benefit playing them earlier in the season.