Closing in on the halfway point for not knowing if you can get through another weekend without college football, and thankfully, there's still plenty to complain about. In the interest of not having to resort to baseball or curling columns, the decision on this end is to grovel about the issues in college football that need to be changed on an individual basis. This weeks installment of "The people who run college football suck" involves the good old, oft complained about...schedule.
Issue 1: What is smarter if you just want to play for a title...pack the schedule OOC with cupcakes? Or play tough teams in hopes that you get battle tested and with a few fingers, toes, and genitals crossed...not lose too many games. We all know that if you're a BCS team, it's probably smarter to just put skimpy wimpy teams in your building every Saturday and hope there are no major slip ups. People think this isn't fair. Mostly the one's that run the risk of getting drubbed 3-4 times a year at the least.
Solution: For this particular issue, ban the scheduling of D-1AA teams. Or whatever the hell they call it now. The names to half this stuff changes more than my underwear. For the record, we're going on 2.5 days now with this pair. But I have showered several times, so in a way, I think it's a little hypocritical for my unmentionables that are being mentioned. Anyways, what happens if you ban these teams from being on the schedule? All these teams so effing desperate for a little 12th game nookie will actually need to worry about losing that game on some level if they don't pony up and play someone D1...A. For instance and argument, look at Wisconsin, who after the Big 10 season goes all workman's effort on the world and decides to show up for a late season glorified practice game against Cal-Polytechnic. Seriously. What is the point of this game? Would it be so hard to toss Texas Tech on there earlier in the season? Scheduling of non D1A teams is at an all time high, meaning teams basically just want a free win. The 12th game was enacted to give voters "extra knowledge" of sorts when deciding who plays for a title after some serious controversey. Tell me, oh wise voters, what does beating Coastal Carolina or Concordia Seminary have to do with any extra knowledge. The 12th game is about money. That's it.
Issue 2: The schedule is set up for BCS teams to essentially do what they want and leaves the little guy in the lurch, as BCS teams don't wanna go there to play and say "hey, we can get in without playing you. You have no choice. Knife to the throat. Now go make me a sandwich, non BCS woman."
Solution: I've heard a great ton of these. I weeded them out and have condensed it down to the most interesting one, if not the most fiscally responsible. Regulate the # of home games per year. The guy that came up with this says 6-6. I don't necessarily think that's the solution. That's too many, and budding programs often need those giant paydays from the big boys to fund their football program. So I think you just modify it. Like making an A cup into a B or small C. Not stuffing it overboard for the sake of Ds. Demand each team play at least ONE road OOC game IF they choose to play 12 games. This gets sticky in say, the Pac 10, where they already play 9 conference games. So really, why not just add a conference game to everyone's schedule? Other than obviously the Big East, who already plays 7 games and everyone. Admit it, it woulda been nice to know if Kansas was really that good, and playing Oklahoma might have gotten them into the title game. We know about the Big 10. Would you really mind an extra ACC or SEC game instead of seeing Western Carolina scroll across the bottom for someone every week? So one extra conference game...so we can be SURE when a conference champ is crowned, that's the right team. One guaranteed, you HAVE to play it OOC road game, and boom, things really start happening.
Issue 3: Teams schedule based on who they think will get them natty tele time. So if South Florida calls and wants a game, and Alabama calls and wants a game...you pick Alabama. No brainer. So USF has a tougher road to hoe convincing teams that it should be on their schedule when some big brand name team is waiting outside in the car in a short skirt and no panties.
Solution: Flex television scheduling. Borrow something from the NFL if you're gonna send your guys there. Each week, the NFL decides the NBC Sunday night football schedule based on interest in teams at that time, mostly due to what is at stake. So the onus will be to put good teams on your schedule regardless of being name brand because if that team is successful, the liklihood of you getting on the tube is higher. ABC, CBS, to some degree ESPN, and FSN all have set schedules going into the season. Sure it's regional, but what happens when Ohio State loses their first 4 games and we're still stuck watching them play 0-5 Iowa because there was no TV flexibility? Wanna be on TV? Win. And play teams who win. This would help mid major teams as well. Because if you were pondering having a game with Boise State but didn't wanna be squeezed out on TV time, the knowledge that this team would keep you on if it was good should help. In theory, of course.
Issue 4: Teams get treated unfairly for putting formerly decent teams on the schedule that just happened to have had a rough stretch going. Ohio State against Washington being a good example. When this game was enacted, Washington was in the theroes of Rose Bowl contention, even finished #3 in one season recently. But the Huskies went through a black period with Slick Rick and his under the table betting and are making it back. Slowly. So when Ohio State blows them out, everyone gives the Bucks guff. But hey, they didn't know Rick just HAD to bet on UConn that one year.
Solution: Stop the rediculous practice of scheduling games so far in advance. There are teams that know who they're playing in 2015 but not next frigging season. How is that? Will we be shaking our fingers at Oklahoma for putting that "weak Tennessee team" on the schedule in 10 years b/c the Vols have fallen on hard times after Phil Fulmer is in an obesity rehab clinic? So hot damn, maybe allow teams to schedule into 2 years ahead of time unless it's the renewal of a long standing contract, like a Clemson-South Carolina or Michigan-Notre Dame.
Issue 5: Teams back out, leaving others in limbo...which is where these sad, salty, matchups with nobodies always seems to happen.
Solution: Penalties. Harshy ones. If you back out of a game, basically you pay the team you back out on for the loss of revenue. How much you pay them is determined by how far in advance you backed out. Thus, like this year, Arkansas ducking Texas next season...say they do it last year, they pay 15% of the revenue they gain from the extra home game. Since they did it this year...20%. The only thing that seems to talk is the almighty dollar. So when people start having to pony it up, boom, they say "maybe that bludgeoning by Texas really is worth it."
This has been this weeks installment of "Why the people who run NCAA football suck." It has been brought to you by Hamm's and Hamm's light. Always remember kiddies, drink on the cheap. You're gonna feel like crap the next morning anyways. May as well feel like crap and be a little heavier in the pockets.
