Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

College Football News, Rumor & Humor

Buffnik said:
It would increase inventory if more than half of the added games were home games.
Click to expand...
I guess my point is that the value of the TV package will go down due to less conference games and more less attractive OOC games. Attendance is a key issue in CFB. High quality OOC games plus more conference rivalries are needed, IMO. I don’t see 8 happening.
 


giphy.gif
 
hawg1 said:
I guess my point is that the value of the TV package will go down due to less conference games and more less attractive OOC games. Attendance is a key issue in CFB. High quality OOC games plus more conference rivalries are needed, IMO. I don’t see 8 happening.
Click to expand...
An 8 game conference schedule only makes sense to me if you replace that conference game with a P5 game.
 
J.R. Ewing said:
Yeah I don't know how we increase fan, recruit, and network interest with another game Nevada or UTEP.
Click to expand...
Wins matter.

For the most part, even I am guilty of looking at someone's record on a very cursory level. A team that went 8-4 impresses me more than a team that went 7-5. It may be that the 8-4 team played 8 peers and 4 cupcakes while the 7-5 team played 11 peers and 1 cupcake, but perception is that 8-4 was the better season. This matters even when I look a bit deeper because then I'll look at who a team played. If the conference opponents had better records overall (which happens with an 8-game conference schedule), then perception is that the team's conference schedule was tougher.
 
Buffnik said:
Wins matter.

For the most part, even I am guilty of looking at someone's record on a very cursory level. A team that went 8-4 impresses me more than a team that went 7-5. It may be that the 8-4 team played 8 peers and 4 cupcakes while the 7-5 team played 11 peers and 1 cupcake, but perception is that 8-4 was the better season. This matters even when I look a bit deeper because then I'll look at who a team played. If the conference opponents had better records overall (which happens with an 8-game conference schedule), then perception is that the team's conference schedule was tougher.
Click to expand...
This is obviously the argument for SEC/ACC school to remain at 8 con games. Had CU played that kind of schedule the last two seasons, you think we’re talking about 3 straight seasons of CU bowl appearances rather than 1 in the last 13 years?

I honestly don’t care which way it goes, I just want consistency across all leagues that are competing for the same championship.
 
TSchekler said:
This is obviously the argument for SEC/ACC school to remain at 8 con games. Had CU played that kind of schedule the last two seasons, you think we’re talking about 3 straight seasons of CU bowl appearances rather than 1 in the last 13 years?
Click to expand...
With 1 fewer conference game, given our poor conference record, I think we'd have seen 3 or 4 bowls the past 4 years instead of 1 if we'd had 8-game conference schedules. Assumes keeping everything the same but adding a Northern Colorado or Sun Belt type opponent in place of 1 Pac-12 North opponent. Not only would there have been a difference in the win total directly, but our lack of depth wouldn't have caused those teams to wear down so much by the last part of the season.
 
P.S. I'm actually a fan of CU having a "we'll play anyone anywhere" attitude toward scheduling. It seems to work for us, cutting against the grain like that. But even with that, I think there's more benefit to playing 8 Pac-12 games and 3 P5 non-conference opponents versus if it's 9 & 2.
 
Buffnik said:
With 1 fewer conference game, given our poor conference record, I think we'd have seen 3 or 4 bowls the past 4 years instead of 1 if we'd had 8-game conference schedules. Assumes keeping everything the same but adding a Northern Colorado or Sun Belt type opponent in place of 1 Pac-12 North opponent. Not only would there have been a difference in the win total directly, but our lack of depth wouldn't have caused those teams to wear down so much by the last part of the season.
Click to expand...
Right. It’s puts the BIG and Pac 12 at a total disadvantage as is. I’d rather see all P5 programs increase the intrigue and level of play by all going to 9 and then mandating that 2/3 remaining regular season games be against P5 programs. That, to me, would be ideal, but if all P5 conferences want to go to 8 con games and then each program decides what to do with the 4 OOC games, that’s fine with me too
 
TSchekler said:
Right. It’s puts the BIG and Pac 12 at a total disadvantage as is. I’d rather see all P5 programs increase the intrigue and level of play by all going to 9 and then mandating that 2/3 remaining regular season games be against P5 programs. That, to me, would be ideal, but if all P5 conferences want to go to 8 con games and then each program decides what to do with the 4 OOC games, that’s fine with me too
Click to expand...
The other thing about 8 that I like is that I like having a balanced conference schedule with the same number of home and away games. Seems more fair to me that way. It's why I'd always felt that the perfect number of members for a conference was 9 and could never figure out why none of them did that.
 
Buffnik said:
P.S. I'm actually a fan of CU having a "we'll play anyone anywhere" attitude toward scheduling. It seems to work for us, cutting against the grain like that. But even with that, I think there's more benefit to playing 8 Pac-12 games and 3 P5 non-conference opponents versus if it's 9 & 2.
Click to expand...
"We'll play anyone, anywhere" is exactly what sold me to be a CU fan. That's the way it used to be, being born in Colorado didn't hurt either.:D I loved that attitude, though. I'd like to see it again.
 
Buffnik said:
I wish this would be a CFP rule on eligibility for the tournament.
Click to expand...

If that would become policy, it would widen the divide between the P5 schools and the rest of D1. I realize many believe that is NBD but I don't see it as a good thing for college football as fewer schools are given any shot at significant revenue.

Regardless though, we're probably too far down the path to turn around -- sunk costs and all that.
 
hokiehead said:
If that would become policy, it would widen the divide between the P5 schools and the rest of D1. I realize many believe that is NBD but I don't see it as a good thing for college football as fewer schools are given any shot at significant revenue.

Regardless though, we're probably too far down the path to turn around -- sunk costs and all that.
Click to expand...
I don’t think two OOC games against G5 teams a year is bad at all. You aren’t changing the inventory of games by that much outside of two conferences.
 
onealcd said:
I don’t think two OOC games against G5 teams a year is bad at all. You aren’t changing the inventory of games by that much outside of two conferences.
Click to expand...
That policy would remove all hope of non-G5 schools for making the ayoffs and earning the associated revenue. Is that what fans want?

Shjt man, i now routinely hear casual CFB fans lament that their season is over in week 2 because of a single OOC loss. U think that sucks and lament the days when conference championships were significant to most fans. A system where the season "is over", by design, before it even starts, for more than 50% of D1 doesn't seem like a good thing.
 
hokiehead said:
That policy would remove all hope of non-G5 schools for making the ayoffs and earning the associated revenue. Is that what fans want?

Shjt man, i now routinely hear casual CFB fans lament that their season is over in week 2 because of a single OOC loss. U think that sucks and lament the days when conference championships were significant to most fans. A system where the season "is over", by design, before it even starts, for more than 50% of D1 doesn't seem like a good thing.
Click to expand...
But why do you think that would eliminate them. Boise State can still schedule up to four games against P5 opponents. Yes if they lose that means they are done but that is the case right now too.
 
onealcd said:
But why do you think that would eliminate them. Boise State can still schedule up to four games against P5 opponents. Yes if they lose that means they are done but that is the case right now too.
Click to expand...
Under Scott's proposal, scheduling all four OOC game vs non-P5 opponents would still leave them six P5 games short of the minimum needed to qualify for playoffs. They'd be eliminated before the season started, not upon losing a game.
 
hokiehead said:
Under Scott's proposal, scheduling all four OOC game vs non-P5 opponents would still leave them six P5 games short of the minimum needed to qualify for playoffs. They'd be eliminated before the season started, not upon losing a game.
Click to expand...
Oh **** sorry, I thought that was just about the 10 _P5 games for the major conferences. Carry on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top