Not Coach Speak

[GlideCat]

But you're the one saying you'd rather play an extra Big Ten game and lose it than go to a bowl game!

To be technical, his statement would most logically be that he would rather play an extra B1G game which was more competitive (meaning a statistically lower probability of a win in any given year) than an OOC game with a higher probability of a win which gives a higher probability of a bowl trip in any given year.

I will not accuse any fan on this board of wanting the team to lose. It would be more accurate to say that he would accept more losses in order to make the wins means more.

I still disagree with him but do not want this to start getting off track.

 

[Styre]

To be technical, his statement would most logically be that he would rather play an extra B1G game which was more competitive (meaning a statistically lower probability of a win in any given year) than an OOC game with a higher probability of a win which gives a higher probability of a bowl trip in any given year.

Sure, but tying it to the idea of making a bowl game implies that we lose the extra game. Still, it's a fair point; I just don't understand the attraction to making it harder to reach the postseason when we've only won two bowl games in 100 years.

 

[villox]

Sure, but tying it to the idea of making a bowl game implies that we lose the extra game. Still, it's a fair point; I just don't understand the attraction to making it harder to reach the postseason when we've only won two bowl games in 100 years.

Would you be in favor of switching our current scheduling practice over to FOUR cupcakes on the schedule in order to increase the chances of making a bowl game? If not, why not?

I think both sides have valid perspectives here and it's not cut and dry. I really look forward to the regular season and as much I want to see us go to a bowl game every year, I also want each game to mean something.

I'm surprised nobody's brought up yet another potential drawback of making the schedule generally (or potentially) harder - it reduces our chances of rotating in backups early in the season to give us more depth/experience in case of injury.

 

[pawildcat]

But you're the one saying you'd rather play an extra Big Ten game and lose it than go to a bowl game!

I agree that it's not much of an achievement these days to go bowling, but I'd still rather see NU in a bowl than see an extra game against Indiana or whatever.

Please show me where I ever said I'd rather play an extra Big Ten game and LOSE it than go to a bowl game. I said I was in favor of playing the extra B1G game, period. Are you assuming we're going to lose the extra B1G game? I'm making no such assumption. We haven't had the extra B1G game the past two years and, if you'll recall, didn't even go .500 either year. Anyway, it all soon becomes moot whether you like it, I like it or Fitz likes it, because the B1G is going to a nine-game schedule. If there's no confidence that we can go even .500 under such circumstances, maybe we ought to find another league.

To be technical, his statement would most logically be that he would rather play an extra B1G game which was more competitive (meaning a statistically lower probability of a win in any given year) than an OOC game with a higher probability of a win which gives a higher probability of a bowl trip in any given year.

I will not accuse any fan on this board of wanting the team to lose. It would be more accurate to say that he would accept more losses in order to make the wins means more.

I still disagree with him but do not want this to start getting off track.

Look, this was my original post:

"If the coaches are going to continue to go for million dollar-plus salaries, and we're going to give four-year scholarships worth more than $200,000 plus stipends, we're going to need to bring in money. Nobody wants to see Eastern Illinois play NU in football. The extra B1G game is needed."

I guess I thought this was a pretty straightforward post stating that I thought the extra B1G game would be good because, on average, it would bring in more money to cover the increasing costs of our sports program. Now apparently I don't want NU to go to bowl games or win because I the temerity to think we ought to be able to win six games to earn our way in (the same standard I believe the other 13 teams in the league will be held to).

I'm glad you are not accusing me of wanting the team to lose, because that would be damned insulting. I don't make a habit of buying season tickets for more than 20 years for a team located more than 600 miles away from me in the hope that they'll be lousy.

If the idea is that it might make it harder to get to a bowl game, that's a decent argument, but Styre's statement that I'd rather play a B1G game and lose it than go to a bowl game is patently ridiculous. I'm not ASSUMING we're going to lose the extra B1G game every year. Are you? Our extra B1G game in any given year is just as likely to be Rutgers or Indiana as Ohio State. OOC scheduling also obviously plays a big role in whether we go bowling or not. Do you think Stanford and Duke will be easier games than Illinois and Purdue this year? We'll see.

 

[Styre]

Would you be in favor of switching our current scheduling practice over to FOUR cupcakes on the schedule in order to increase the chances of making a bowl game? If not, why not?

Yes, 100%. I'm amenable to keeping one difficult game in there but the other three (or two, going forward) should be easy wins over garbage teams. Unless you're one of the best teams in the nation, nobody cares about your strength of schedule -- and 5-0 Big Ten teams usually get ranked and get national attention no matter who they play. In 2009, we got an Outback Bowl berth ahead of a Wisconsin team with a better record despite playing four garbage non-conference games. When we get to the point that we're pushing for the playoff, we can rethink this strategy.

I guess I thought this was a pretty straightforward post stating that I thought the extra B1G game would be good because, on average, it would bring in more money to cover the increasing costs of our sports program. Now apparently I don't want NU to go to bowl games or win because I the temerity to think we ought to be able to win six games to earn our way in (the same standard I believe the other 13 teams in the league will be held to).

Looking back over the thread I think I confused your posts with someone else's, in which case I apologize for misrepresenting you.

That said, I disagree that the extra B1G game will be a particular help to attendance unless we always get a major draw from the other division in the years when we play Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, etc. on the road. And since Big Ten games are, on average, much more difficult than non-conference games, we're going to lose more of them and, logically, have worse records, on average, going forward. And the more losing seasons we have, the worse our attendance is going to be in those games against opponents that don't fill our stadium by themselves.

 

[GlideCat]

And since Big Ten games are, on average, much more difficult than non-conference games, we're going to lose more of them and, logically, have worse records, on average, going forward. And the more losing seasons we have, the worse our attendance is going to be in those games against opponents that don't fill our stadium by themselves.

This is an interesting point. The Indiana, Maryland, and Rutgers games that we have about as high a percentage chance of winning as a weaker OOC opponent are not going to increase our attendance or income in the short term. The OSU, Michigan, Penn State, Michigan State games will increase our attendance for those games but will on average not benefit our winning percentage as much as weaker OC opponents.

So the very games that will provide short term attendance and monetary gains will contribute toward long term attendance and monetary declines.

 

[GlideCat]

Would you be in favor of switching our current scheduling practice over to FOUR cupcakes on the schedule in order to increase the chances of making a bowl game?

To provide more data for this argument, the following is a link to the top 10 easiest OOC schedules in the country:

http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...tgers-weakest-non-conference-schedules-080315

Of the ten teams listed, five were ranked in the top 25 during some portion of last season. Miss State was ranked #1. While this article is about the upcoming season, Miss State had just as easy of an OOC schedule last year and was certainly not penalized. Baylor was in the hunt for the play-offs until the bitter end even though their strength of schedule was brought up repeatedly.

Overall wins = higher rankings = higher profile games = more fan interest. The first step has to be getting more wins on the books and getting into bowl games.

 

[pawildcat]

Yes, 100%. I'm amenable to keeping one difficult game in there but the other three (or two, going forward) should be easy wins over garbage teams. Unless you're one of the best teams in the nation, nobody cares about your strength of schedule -- and 5-0 Big Ten teams usually get ranked and get national attention no matter who they play. In 2009, we got an Outback Bowl berth ahead of a Wisconsin team with a better record despite playing four garbage non-conference games. When we get to the point that we're pushing for the playoff, we can rethink this strategy.



Looking back over the thread I think I confused your posts with someone else's, in which case I apologize for misrepresenting you.

That said, I disagree that the extra B1G game will be a particular help to attendance unless we always get a major draw from the other division in the years when we play Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, etc. on the road. And since Big Ten games are, on average, much more difficult than non-conference games, we're going to lose more of them and, logically, have worse records, on average, going forward. And the more losing seasons we have, the worse our attendance is going to be in those games against opponents that don't fill our stadium by themselves.

OK, that's a valid point of view although, as I said earlier, it's happening whether we like it or not. Pax.

 

[pawildcat]

To provide more data for this argument, the following is a link to the top 10 easiest OOC schedules in the country:

http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...tgers-weakest-non-conference-schedules-080315

Of the ten teams listed, five were ranked in the top 25 during some portion of last season. Miss State was ranked #1. While this article is about the upcoming season, Miss State had just as easy of an OOC schedule last year and was certainly not penalized. Baylor was in the hunt for the play-offs until the bitter end even though their strength of schedule was brought up repeatedly.

Overall wins = higher rankings = higher profile games = more fan interest. The first step has to be getting more wins on the books and getting into bowl games.

Baylor was in the hunt, but when push came to shove you'll notice they got left out. I think Delany is taking the NCAA at its word that scheduling is going to matter in the playoff hunt. We'll see the first time the SEC gets left out. As far as NU, we were getting more wins on the books and getting into bowl games until the past two years. We'll see what happens on that front as well.

 

[NUCat320]

This is an interesting point. The Indiana, Maryland, and Rutgers games that we have about as high a percentage chance of winning as a weaker OOC opponent are not going to increase our attendance or income in the short term. The OSU, Michigan, Penn State, Michigan State games will increase our attendance for those games but will on average not benefit our winning percentage as much as weaker OC opponents.

So the very games that will provide short term attendance and monetary gains will contribute toward long term attendance and monetary declines.

The general public doesn't dostinguisb between 5 and 6 and 7 wins. The public notices when a team is perennially in the top 25. The ninth conference game has no bearing on this.

6 wins is below average for the Big Ten. The public won't notice below average.

 

[Styre]

OK, that's a valid point of view although, as I said earlier, it's happening whether we like it or not. Pax.

Honestly, I think the biggest problem isn't Big Ten game vs. FCS game, it's the scheduling. In the years that we have 5 conference road games, we're most likely going to drop from 7 home games to 6 (unless we play all three non-con at home) and the loss of an entire gate is a lot more than the difference between a B1G and FCS game.

 

[pawildcat]

Honestly, I think the biggest problem isn't Big Ten game vs. FCS game, it's the scheduling. In the years that we have 5 conference road games, we're most likely going to drop from 7 home games to 6 (unless we play all three non-con at home) and the loss of an entire gate is a lot more than the difference between a B1G and FCS game.

I agree that adding the extra league along WITH the pledge not to play FCS schools could present a problem as there will be a need to find schools who don't necessarily want a home-and-home. I'm sure schools such as OSU and Penn State will always manage at least seven home games. It will be a harder task for NU.