Home › Buffzone Columnists
Woelk: College grid scheduling has become a fine line
When Bill McCartney was turning Colorado into a national football power (six consecutive top-20 seasons, three Big Eight titles and a national championship), Mac loaded up his non-conference schedule.
STORY TOOLS
More Buffzone Columnists
- Dufresne: College football faces tough act to follow
- Woelk: CU should call shots in series with CSU
- Thorburn: There's no topping these traditions
Share and Enjoy [?]
CU's non-Big Eight slate was peppered with games against such stalwarts as Tennessee, Illinois, Washington, Stanford, Texas, Michigan, Wisconsin and Baylor (when the Bears were a top-25 school).
It made for great schedules and exciting times, both for fans and players.
But times have changed. While this corner has never been a proponent of lining up four non-conference sacrificial lambs, the altered landscape of college football is such that a brutal early schedule does more damage than good.
That's one reason Colorado recently made the decision to push back a planned series with LSU and add Fresno State for a three-year stretch.
(By the way -- no one in these parts is counting Fresno as a cupcake. Folks around here remember all too well the Bulldogs' 24-22 win in 2001, a year in which CU finished ninth in the nation.)
The move makes sense for a variety of reasons, beginning from a financial standpoint.
Instead of CU playing a home-and-home with LSU, the Buffs get two home games against Fresno in return for one road trip. That's an extra home game's worth of revenue. CU will likely never be a school that can turn up its nose at additional money.But it also makes sense from a scheduling perspective.
Colorado's future schedules already have plenty of BCS schools in the non-conference portion. West Virginia, Georgia, Cal, Oregon and Minnesota are already on tap over the next six years.
Some of CU's Big 12 peers won't play that half that many BCS-conference schools over the same span.
But unlike the days when Mac roamed CU's sidelines, Colorado can no longer afford to overload its early season schedule.
Why?
The Big 12 is by leaps and bounds a tougher overall conference than the old Big Eight.
The McCartney Era at CU was blessed by some good fortune, at least as far as the Buffs were concerned.
When Barry Switzer was forced out at Oklahoma after the 1988 season, it left only one traditional power in the Big Eight -- Nebraska. The following season, CU beat Nebraska and won its first of three straight Big Eight titles (one shared with NU in 1991).
Meanwhile, the rest of the Big Eight was for the most part a weak conference. Only once in Mac's last six years did his team face more than two ranked opponents in the Big Eight portion of the schedule, meaning Mac was virtually guaranteed four to five conference wins every year.
That's not the case today. Rather, it's a rarity when Colorado doesn't see at least three ranked teams on the Big 12 schedule, and sometimes four. Even at the bottom of the conference, the competitive level has improved significantly.
For McCartney, it meant he could always count on a two- or three-week stretch in which his teams could heal during the Big Eight season.
For today's CU coach, such stretches don't exist in the Big 12 -- which is why a brutal non-conference schedule can be a slow form of suicide.
Not that we would ever -- ever -- advocate the scheduling format employed by some other Big 12 schools.
(Quick: name the school that plays Florida International, Louisiana Tech, South Florida and Sam Houston State next fall. Kansas fans will tell you they like that schedule. Kansas fans are either suckers or know nothing about football.)
But there is a fine line between playing a schedule that treats fans to competitive games against quality opponents and one that can bury a head coach.
CU officials are doing their best to find that fine line.
Posted by JasperJohns on June 1, 2008 at 1:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Kansas, huh? My first guess would've been the Hussshh-kerz (spoken with an undereducated Lincoln area drawl).
Posted by montanabuff on June 1, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Surfrider2 -
You want rationalization? Explain South Dakota State, Western Kentucky, and Idaho - those are Nebraska's 2010 non-conference appetizers. (By the way, those games were announced this spring, after Pelini was hired).
Posted by buffdaddy on June 1, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To be the best you've got to beat the best. I say bring on the best and leave the directional schools to programs without intestinal fortitude.
Posted by skipples4u on June 2, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hey tall im confused.... are you supposed to be a buff fan or a fusker? you and your little red friends should stick and ear of corn where the sun don't shine.... why don't you go farm so I can eat.
Posted by buffman30 on June 2, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good article. Kansas made a BCS game last year with their patsy schedule. In this era, winning games is more important than playing quality competition.
Posted by archalon on June 2, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"In this era, winning games is more important than playing quality competition."
Whether that is reality or not, I completely disagree with the philosophy of easy scheduling- play the best to be the best. Wanna sellout Folsom ? bring in the FSU, Georgia, WVU's. Wanna continue to have empty seats ? Schedule San Jose State, EWU, Miami (OH)
What if CU pulls a 9 win season against this fall's schedule ? THAT is progress. 9 wins aganist NU's scheduling, or KU's next year, should be penalized somehow.
Posted by flabuff227 on June 2, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
i agree with you arc. if we went wit the easy road fans would have nothing to look forward to til' oct. rather than sept. Which would not be good for fan base.
Posted by baBUFF on June 2, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All of these are good arguments which is why I dislike the Fresno St. move. You either have to keep the big games against the LSUs of the world which fill the stands and get us on TV - plus winning that game would be a huge boost for the program and Hawk. Or, you schedule true cupcakes to get some early OOC wins.
Fresno gives us neither. We're not going to get the kind of hype we want from beating Fresno because they are a non-BCS school, and at the same time they are definitely not a cupcake.
Recruiting isn't really going to benefit because the central valley isn't exactly overflowing with D1 talent - Fresno is an island and not part of the traditional SoCal recruiting base.
If money is truely the issue and the 2 for 1 is a big time financial take v. the LSU series then I can understand, otherwise I say Boo.
Posted by buffsareone on June 2, 2008 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A lot of you are ignorant. If you read the original story, you would know that the LSU contract has been on the table since 2006. Since games are already being scheduled in 2015, should CU just wait around until LSU signs, or should they go out and find another team to play? I also love the fact that everyone assumes that LSU will still be a great team to play. Keep in mind that Nebraska, Miami, and Florida State were all in the BCS title game this decade, and have dropped off just as quickly as other schools have risen to the occasion. And since LSU played Middle Tennessee, Tulane, lost twice, and still won a national championship, I think playing mid major schools is just fine.
Posted by StopTheInsanity on June 2, 2008 at 9:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Buffsareone,
Agree 100% - jeez back off on the testosterone and posturing everyone. Win-loss records and league championships get you the national recognition and the big payoffs in January -- not who you are played in September. Given how the DI football championship works, you want to get into November with one, maybe two losses at the most. It's a "bottom line" business so set up your schedules accordingly.
Posted by baBUFF on June 3, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You're absolutely right, Win-Loss records are much more important than who you play so why not schedule a tomoato can to give us a better chance at a "big payoff" in January? You only need to look back to 2001 to see how our strategy of scheduling a mid-major blew up in our face. HOw much was our "big payoff" affected by that loss? And why did Nebraska get to the national title game that year when they didn't even win their own conference? Because of their W-L record.
And despite the struggles at Miami, and Florida St lately, you can't tell me they aren't still a bigger draw than Fresno. Same would be the case with LSU in a couple years even if they aren't where they are now.
Posted by buffalo_flyer on June 4, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
right on baBUFF, but
The BCS selects its teams based on how many fans travel, not W-L records. The NC is a joke.
Bring the titans of CFB to Boulder in the OOC portion and let the tall's watch their huskers play the directionals, aint that right husker-bieb (yeah I know who you really are)
Posted by mgmtgrad on June 4, 2008 at 8:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There were a lot of good points above both pro and con, but one of the main issues addressed in the article was about how a hard schedule affects a team physically.
I want to see CU play a top 25 non-conference every year, but…
Every one who posted above play along for a moment and let me present a thought:
2 - 3 top 25 BCS teams and 1 - 2 teams outside of the top 25. Not cupcakes, but teams that we can get our 2nd and 3rd string some game time. This saves our 1st string some wear and tear and gives younger guys much needed game time experience and development.
2 very good benefits.
Well not every year, I do enjoy the seasons when we play a non-conference schedule that’s rank in the top 5 non-conference’s schedules too.
Marcus J
Posted by JohnCronin on June 28, 2008 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kansas is going to be going back to the usual Kansas shortly.
Buffs are going to need some luck this year. Go Buffs.
Geoff Barrett
(Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.