Blatant Non-Conference Scheduling Practices by the SEC

Now that the SEC has won 7 straight BCS Titles, what does the future 2013 SEC non-conference schedule hold for the “supposed” best conference?  Does 7- straight titles entitle them to schedule an easier non-conference schedule or control it more in their favor? With the 2013 season almost 8 months away, the FBS schedules are out and almost finalized. The review of the 2013 SEC non-conference schedules indicate that the SEC once again, controls and manipulates their strategic position for the BCS championship game again. What many of you SEC supporters would say is “that we play in the  toughest conference and we have already won 7 titles in a row.” Well that is all perception and opinion based. The reality is that the SEC possesses the WORST non-conference scheduling practices in all of the FBS levels. The SEC possesses the HIGHEST home field advantage of all FBS conference at 79.8%, which is conclusive evidence supported by peer reviewed journal articles that supports home field advantage.

The 3-time, defending BCS champion, Alabama lightens their load again and will play all their 2013 non-conference games at HOME or within SEC supportive advantage country. Must be nice to play more home games and never play outside of the Southeastern part of the US, accept for 1-time a season if that. The review of the 2013 SEC non-conference schedules revealed that the SEC possesses an 80.4% non-conference home field advantage in the upcoming 2013 FBS season. The results revealed that the SEC has scheduled 45 HOME games versus 11 AWAY games in  the 2013 non-conference schedule. What a significant advantage to home field with every team and every FBS season. This has been an ongoing cognitive practice for the SEC since the inception of the BCS or Bowl Coalition.

The continued review of the 2013 SEC non-conference schedules indicates another hedonistic control over their non-conference schedule which strategically places them in position to compete for the BCS title year in and year out. Outside of what’s already stated, the review of the 2013 SEC non-conference schedule is this:

1 game West with Tennessee traveling to Oregon

9 games scheduled with the Sun Belt Conf.

8 games scheduled with the ACC

7 games scheduled with the CUSA

6 games scheduled with the MAC

3 games scheduled with the B12

2 games scheduled with the Big East and PAC 12

1 game each with the MWC, B10 and Independents(not Notre Dame)

15 games scheduled with FCS programs, none of which are becoming FBS members in the near future.

The SEC non-conference schedule is loaded with more NON-BCS games and at HOME versus traveling to those NON-BCS sites. The SEC fears losing and ruining their reputation and credibility. That’s why they control their non-conference schedule. Another significant advantage the SEC possesses is they prey on FCS programs early and late in the football season to pad their win totals. My take on playing FCS games is GO  play another FBS program, most likely away versus other FBS programs. Stop scheduling the more than significant win versus any FCS opponent. The SEC has manipulated the system in their favor for too many years which has led them to 7-straight BCS championships. What is more interesting  is that no one wants to report  or challenge this within the media.

The moral of this story is; if every FBS program scheduled the way the SEC does, then this would be a true hedonistic way to significantly increase your probability in playing for the BCS championship. Dear SEC: Schedule someone at the same level, play at their venue outside of the Southeastern US and not in a neutral site.


Final Edits on Book and Update

Since my last post on December 9, 2012; I have spent this time adding 2 chapters to the book, editing, making final edits and submitting paper work to the US Copyright Offices to protect this literary work and research. I can say at this point in time that the work is FINALLY complete after 5-years of exhaustive research and writing. I have already looked at self publishing and a marketing plan. As of this post, I am on the clock awaiting my certification from the copyright offices. If all goes as planned publication of the literary work could be end of March or first part of April.

I would like to ask of those who follow my posts through twitter or Facebook which size book would be most beneficial for reading:

A. 8 1/2 X 11

B. 5.5 X 8

Please feel free to twitter me at cfbpoexpert or comment on this post for your suggestion on book size.

Heisman Trophy Winners…

Are the Non-BCS student athletes not credible to be considered for the Heisman Trophy?  However, they are credible enough to recruit and offer student athlete scholarships to. At the NCAA level of amateur athletics within the FBS level for football, a large number of student-athletes are recruited and provided the opportunity to earn scholarships and compete for prestigious universities and colleges.  Thus, bringing the possibility of accolades, awards, wins, exposure and increase financial rewards to support the athletic department and institution. The more predominant offensive players are significantly selected for the candidacy for the prestigious Heisman Trophy yearly, with the rare defensive player earning the opportunity be considered as a candidate for the same trophy.

During the recent years there were slight increases of Non-BCS student-athletes considered as candidates to be finalists for voting; Kellen Moore (Boise State) Case Kennum (Houston), Andy Dalton (TCU), Colin Kaepernick (Nevada) and Nate Davis (Ball State) to name a few that were selected as finalists. However, the historic review of the 78-year presentation of the Heisman Trophy has been handed to significantly more BCS programs student athletes. Of the 78 presentations of the Heisman Trophy, 65 or 83.3% were BCS program student athletes. The remaining 13 Heisman Trophies were Non-BCS program student athletes. The last time a Non-BCS program student athlete received this prestigious award was 22-years ago to Ty Detmer from BYU in 1990 and the previous year in 1989 to Andre Ware from Houston. Prior to those two successive Non-BCS student athletes winning the Heisman, there was a longer drought for a Non-BCS winner. 25-years previous in 1963, Roger Staubach from Navy won the Heisman Trophy. If I am not mistaken those 3 Heisman winners led their teams to undefeated seasons prior their post season bowl games. Currently an undefeated Non-BCS team in a single season or consecutive seasons is still NOT enough to win the Heisman Trophy as a Non-BCS student athlete, recent cases in point that support this are Kellen Moore from Boise State and Case Kennum from Houston.

I am not stating that the previous winners did not earn the Heisman. There were some recent Non-BCS student athletes who should have earned the Heisman Trophy based upon the mission of the award, their individual performance, teams overall regular season record and national exposure that they brought to their institutions.  The review of the historic Heisman winners significantly indicates is that for ANY Non-BCS student athlete to receive the award they MUST significantly outperform ALL BCS student-athletes which receives significantly more television and newspaper media exposure. These Non-BCS student-athletes are credible enough to recruit and play at the top level of college football for the NCAA in the FBS, but not credible enough to be selected as the Heisman Trophy winner. Their important enough to their team to  lead them to wins, limited national media exposure, bowl games and more than significantly prosper at the next level of play.Without some of these Non-BCS program student athletes, we as a college football audience and media would NEVER be talking about their Non-BCS programs success such as; Boise State, Nevada, Utah, Houston, BYU and Louisiana Tech to name a few.  With length of time passing between Non-BCS winners fast approaching, when will the next Non-BCS student athlete receive the prestigious Heisman Trophy or will it never happen again.

FBS: The Field of 16

Do you ever wonder what college football would be like at the FBS level if there were a field of 16? Throughout the exhaustive research of college football at the FBS level, I was able to develop a FAIR, measurable and non-subjective criteria to determine who would make the field of 16 FBS playoffs. My system eliminates computer systems and human voters who possess vested interest and bias who can manipulate the rankings when large sums of money becomes the ultimate mission. The players and coaches are the ones who make the cognitive decisions on the field that ultimately creates their overall record and assists in determining their seeding spot if selected into the field of 16. There are also other measurable criteria that assists in seeding the field of 16 which I will not divulge at this moment and time. What I can say is that research and peer reviewed journal articles assisted in the thought process of designing the 16 team traditional playoff format. All I can say is some decisions are easy, some are challenging needing investigative analysis and some are very difficult to make.

NOTE: all games played as conference championship games were not taken into account due to the fact that ALL conferences do not possess a championship game, in addition to that only 10% of  the FBS plays a 13th game. The regular season ends after the 12th game of the season is complete. There were no favortism or bias into the seeding of these 16 FBS programs, the FBS programs earned these seeds.

This is how a traditional style bracketed playoff format could look like if the FBS/NCAA possessed a 16 team playoff.

1st Weekend of DECEMBER(higher ranked seeds Host and are Home)

#1 Notre Dame (12-0) vs #16 Clemson (10-2)

#8 Northern Illinois (11-1) vs. #9 Stanford (10-2)

#5 Florida (11-1) vs. #12 South Carolina (10-2)

#4 Georgia (11-1) vs. # 13 LSU (10-2)

#3 Oregon (11-2) vs. #14 Utah State (10-2)

#6 Alabama (10-2) vs.#11 Oklahoma (10-2)

#7 Kansas State (11-1) vs. #10 Boise State (10-2)

#2 Kent State (11-1) vs. #15 San Jose State (10-2)

3rd weekend of DECEMBER(neutral sites)


ND, CLEM, NIU  and STAN-  2 winners play at New Mexico Bowl.

FLA, SC, GA and LSU- 2 winners play at Idaho Potato Bowl.


ORG, UTST, ALA and OU- 2 winners play at Poinsetta Bowl.

KST, BOIST, KENST, and SJST- 2 winners play at Beef O Brady Bowl.


POD A- final 2 remaining winners play at Orange Bowl.

POD B- final 2 remaining winner play at Rose Bowl.

JAN 7th

Championship Game with POD A  remaining winner vs POD B remaining winner at the Sugar Bowl.

Imagine the excitement, fans, media coverage and the revenue this would generate in regions across the country. The taxed based dollars would generate revenue and ALL playoff games would be SOLD OUT, no empty seats.

For those who are asking why my (10-2) team did not earn a seed, here is the best explanation without getting to deep. Both Texas A&M and Florida State only played 10 FBS games. FCS programs are in-eligible to play for the FBS championship. Yes, some seeded programs played 1 FCS program, so whats the difference? They won more games and the FCS game they played were used as analysis to assist in the seeding process with like records. Best suggestion, schedule FBS programs or only schedule 1 FCS program and/or schedule FCS programs that have made the FBS commitment in the coming years. Louisville’s Non-Conference schedule was not as credible with a combined record of (12-36). Nebrasks was the final decision on not making the field of 16. Nebraska possessed a stronger Non-Conference combined record of (18-18), but other FBS programs seeded earned a record versus those already seeded and played a tougher non-conference schedule based upon number of home and away games.

How does this playoff format change the bowl system, in reality it doesnt. The bowl games can still run congruent with this playoff format but with 76 Bowl eligible FBS teams this season, that leaves 60 FBS bowl eligible programs to be selected into the remaining bowls. My next post in the coming days will have the adjusted Bowl Games with the remaining eligible FBS teams trying to stay within the bowl contractual agreements as possible.

This is what college football could possess, just like the NCAA March Madness, but in December and Traditional New Years week. The purpose of this post was to make you look at college football differently. Yes, even during the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament selection, some teams do not understand why they were left out or how they are seeded the way they were. The difference is, THEY GO PLAY no matter what. They respect the system in use and earn the championship by playing out the tournament.

Please feel free to leave me quality question(s) on here, no rants or abuse will be tolerated or you can reach me through twitter at cfbpoexpert.

BCS: Notre Dame Secures Top spot in field of 16

Notre Dame concludes the 2012 FBS season with an incredible goal line stand to secure a (12-0) season to secure the top seed in this researched based 16 team playoff format. And finally, most impressively the BCS National Championship Game versus an opponent yet to be determined by the subjective voters and computers analysis. The difference between the “official” national championship game and my researched based playoff format is that all 124 FBS programs are considered for the 16 spots depending on their FINAL regular season record. Most importantly,each individual FBS program is considered pending that they are not on NCAA probation. With that said, if  (12-0)Ohio State were eligible then where would they be seeded if they possess the same record as Notre Dame? The answer to that question is that, Ohio State would be seeded #2. Since Ohio State is ineligible who will be seeded #2, that’s the mystery.

With the 2012 FBS season concluding next weekend with five conferences; the Big East, the Big 12, the Mountain West, the Sun Belt  and the Western Athletic finishing with conference games the seeds will not be released until early Sunday morning. I can offer this tidbit of information, the following are in the playoff format with seeds to be determined excluding Notre Dame who has earned the #1 seed.

  1. Notre Dame IND(12-0)
  2. Florida SEC(11-1)
  3. Kent State MAC(11-1)
  4. Oregon PAC 12(11-1)
  5. Northern Illinois MAC(11-1)
  6. Alabama SEC (11-1)
  7. Georgia SEC(11-1)

With 7 spots secured that leaves 9 spots with a possibility of 14 FBS teams to be examined for the remaining 9 spots. It does appear that 10-2 is the record to be achieved to be considered for the field of 16. Being 9-3 may not enough to get in when in some seasons it’s enough to be at least considered. Hopefully your (10-2) team will be selected and even not they will play in a prestigious bowl game.

BCS: 2 MAC FBS Teams Secure Playoff Spots

2 Non-BCS/FBS programs secure 2 of the 15 remaining playoff spots with victories today on the last weeks and final games of the FBS season. Both Northern Illinois and Kent State both ended the season with a 11 wins, which secures their spots.  Kent State ran off 10 wins in a row, while Northern Illinois ran off 11 wins in a row. Of the non-conference  victories that were earned by Kent State were at Army(IND) and at Rutgers(BE), while Northern Illinois earned wins versus at Army(IND) and home versus Kansas(B12). Northern Illinois almost finished the 2012 FBS season as one of the undefeated FBS programs, but lost the first game of the season to Iowa(B12) at Iowa(B12) 16-17.   The lone loss that is the only blemish on Kent State’s record was at Kentucky 14-47. Both of these FBS programs earned these 2 playoff spots with seeding placement to be determined upon the completion of the 2012 season and/or when all playoff eligible programs are being considered.

With 3 playoffs spots secured by Notre Dame, Kent State and Northern Illinois, that leaves the possibility of 34 FBS programs in the final weeks or final game to secure one of the remaining 13 spots with seeds to be determined. We will all be glued to our televisions this weekend to watch how the remaining games to be played turn out. There will be upsets I am sure,  as well as close games and blowouts. There will be more surprises in final 13 spots as well as who is seeded where.


BCS: Notre Dame secures spot in Playoff!!!

With the 2012 FBS college football season drawing to a close, Notre Dame has secured one of the hypothetical playoff spots in my field of 16 teams. Notre Dame’s seed position is yet to be determined. However, the 5 years of college football research in which was performed by myself, examined that from 1996 to the present, that any FBS team that earns 11+ victories are 100% guaranteed a seed within the field of 16. Since 1996, the largest number of 11-win FBS programs were 8, in 1998 and 2001. Lets not forget about Ohio State, if not placed on probation by the NCAA would have also secured a playoff spot like Notre Dame with seed to be determined. By playing by the rules, Ohio State or any FBS program could be playing for prestige, honor and national notoriety. This excludes the increases in media exposure, recruiting and financial gains by participating in additional games.

There are specific criterion that determines the field of 16 in my playoff format. Although hypothetical for now, the criteria possesses NO vested interest, NO human polls and NO computer calculations. The seed selection process is determined  by multiple variables that are determined within the current season and no hypothetical situations.

The remaining 15 spots in my playoff format are still up for grabs. However, as the 2012 season concludes, the current situation is as this for the remaining spots. I will not specifically name any FBS programs currently competing for the remaining seeds, until they have actually secured one of the 16 spots. Of the current (9) 10-win FBS teams, there is an 80% significance that they secure a spot within my field by earning their 11th win. By earning the 11th win, they are 100% guaranteed to secure a spot in the filed of 16, with seeding to be determined. There is still a chance that some or all of these (10) win FBS programs lose this week staying at (10) wins.  Of the current (13) 9- win FBS teams, they can become part of the (10) win with an 80% significance in securing one of the 16 playoff spots. By ending the season with 10 wins, the significance of securing one of the 16 playoff spots is significant.  By ending the season as a (9) win FBS  team, there is only a less than 9% significance in earning one of the 16 seeds.  The largest number of 10- win FBS teams were 10 in successive years, 2006 and 2007. However, in 2007 all (10) 2-loss FBS programs made the field of 16.  In 2007, of the (15) FBS teams with 2-losses (10) made the final field of 16. Does this mean that an FBS team currently with (8) wins looking for the 9th or even 10th are not being considered, No. They still have an “FAIR” opportunity to make the field of 16.

There are 2-weeks still left of the FBS football 2012 season, but many finish the regular season this coming weekend. Only the Big East, Big 12 and the Army/Navy game extends into the first weekend of December. Conference Championship games are not take into account when the selection process. I will not explain why for now.

You will surprised at who is being seeded where………..stay tune for more.

Follow me on twitter at cfbpoexpert  or continue to follow me here at

BCS: The SEC Empire Falls

The reign of the SEC empire falls! I predicted on twitter in the beginning and during the course the 2012 FBS season, that NO SEC program would finish the season with 0-losses.Does the SEC possess credible programs, yes.  But the experts within the major media outlets of television and radio were significantly positive about the SEC repeating, most notably Alabama. What are the contributing factors to the SEC empire falling from the graces of glory and praise.

It only took a B12 team from the great football state of TEXAS to topple the empire. The original SEC writers and media personnel were skeptic that either Texas A&M or Missouri would make an significant impact. Well, now its time for these sports writers and analyst to eat crow and hopefully say they were wrong. The contributing factors for the falling SEC empire is as follows:

  1. Too many programs in the conference. This just supports my research and theory based upon increased number of teams in one conference increases mediocrity.
  2. The SEC lost twice to 2 Sun Belt Conference(SBC) programs at Home and 4 close calls versus SBC programs at Home. Just think if those SBC teams won 2 out of the 4 closes ones. This would have significantly decreased the credibility of the SEC.
  3. The significant hedonistic control of their non-conference schedule and never playing away from their home field. Sooner or later the 79.8% home field advantage that the SEC possesses since  1996, is going to catch up with you in the long run.
  4. The significant 90.1% non-conference home field advantage that Alabama possesses from 1996 definitely does not prepare them for tough games in adverse conditions as the season concludes heading into the clubhouse turn.
  5. Finally, the significant increase in scheduling the FCS programs from 50% in 2006 to 100% in 2012. That’s a 233% increase in 6 years of scheduling FCS programs.

These are just the primary contributors to the SEC empire falling from the graces of the BCS as the years added up. Being the money whores of college football, maybe the SEC teams should invest some that financial accolades earned and schedule somebody of caliber, away from the southeastern region and not in a neutral site.What the SEC fears is losing, just like any other FBS program. The SEC is well aware of that losing early or 1-loss will significantly decrease their chances of  playing for the title game. That’s why the SEC controls and manipulates as many of the computer variables possible making the perception of their accolades better than what reality tells us.

Final Thought: To prepare for the higher level of competition towards the end of the season you must prepare your team with better competition during the course of the season. That means putting your team in an un-familiar position and conditions on the road away from home cooking, excluding conference games. This will better prepare your team as you come out of the clubhouse turn and heading toward the finish line. I guess the SEC is worried about making money versus preparing their kids for adversity in life as the season concludes with tougher competition. The SEC concludes with 6 FCS teams next week before rivalry week. Just another scheduled blow out and statistically significant win for the SEC.  In the future, the SEC should schedule D2 and D3 programs towards the end of the season. I guess my point is well stated and proven.

“Just the Facts Ma’am, Just the facts”

BCS: Big12 slightly more credible than SEC

Is Kansas State better than Alabama…..The perception by the subjective voters who’s decisions are not weighted based upon criteria, but opinion and some vested interest. Using the same criterion as in the previous posts with the SEC and Big 10, it can be determined that the Big 12 along with the Big 10 are slightly or significantly statistically better than the SEC. Even though the current perception is that the SEC is “the best football conference in the FBS”. The reality is by examining the same statistical categorical variable between the 3 FBS/BCS conference, it can be determined that both the Big 10 and Big 12 are the better FBS/BCS conferences within the integrity of the non-conference schedule, taking a significant risk of playing more non-conference games on the road and a decreased rate of scheduling FCS programs.

Since 2006, The Big 12 has NOT significantly increased their FCS scheduling rate, like the SEC . In 2006, the Big 12 scheduled 9 FCS opponents and the same number of FCS opponents in 2012.  The  The Big 12 has scheduled 56 FCS programs, that’s 15 less than SEC and 6 less than the Big 10. Those 56 FCS games account for 19.5% of the Big 12’s non conference games. Since, 2006 the Big 10 scheduled 302 non conference games, slightly less than the SEC and Big 10. This is due the fact that both Colorado and Nebraska left the Big 12 after the 2010 season, then Texas A&M and Missouri left after the 2011 for other FBS conferences. The addition of TCU was not taken into account for since this is TCU’s 1st season in the Big 12 and the season is not complete. Comparing the non-conference win loss percentage rates between the 3 FBS conferences, the Big 12 possesses a significant higher rate than the SEC. The Big 12 win-loss rate for non conference games home games since 2006 is (193-29) at 86.9%. That review of the non conference schedules includes scheduling less non conference home game and more road games than the SEC. The Big 12 scheduled 229 Home games with 73 away games with a 75.5% home field advantage rate.. The exact same rate as the Big 10 and significantly less than the SEC which possesses an 81.8% home field non conference scheduling advantge. The Big 12 scheduled 160 Non-BCS programs since 2006, with 122 home games and 38 away games. Those 38 non conference games scheduled vs. Non-BCS programs is significantly 100% more than the SEC whom only scheduled 19 since 2006. The Big 12’s scheduling practices with BCS programs is significantly more fair and even in a home and away scheduling practice but not in total games scheduled with other BCS programs. The Big 12 scheduled 76 BCS programs but 41 of them Home and 36 away. Similar to the Big 10 but less than the SEC.

Let’s review and compare the Big 12 like I did with the Big 10 and SEC. Colorado, Nebraska, Texas A&M and Missouri will be included in this review since all three were historically part of the Big 12 before all of the conference jumping.

  1. Baylor(3-4, 2012). 19H/7A at a rate of 73.1% with an overall non conference record of (18-8) and a non conference home record of (14-5).  Of the non-conference games schedule versus BCS programs since 2006 are: Washington State, Wake Forest, TCU and Connecticut all H/A.
  2. Colorado(1-7, PAC12). 15H/5A at a rate of 75.0%. with an overall non conference record of (9-11) and a non conference home record of (9-6).  Of the non-conference games schedule versus BCS programs since 2006 are: Florida State 2H, California A along with Arizona State, Georgia and West Virginia all H and A.
  3. Iowa State(5-3). 18H/8A at a rate of 69.2% with an overall non conference record of (17-9) and a non conference home record of 14-4).  Of the non-conference games schedule versus BCS programs since 2006 are: Connecticut A and the traditional yearly rivalry with Iowa 3H/4A. Iowa State has scheduled more Non-BCS programs home and away.
  4. Kansas(1-7). 20H/6A at a rate of 76.9% with an overall non conference record of (19-7) and a non conference home record of (18-2).  Of the non-conference games schedule versus BCS programs since 2006 are: Georgia Tech H and A along with Duke A. Kansas like Iowa State also scheduled more non conference games vs. Non-BCS programs than BCS programs.
  5. Kansas State(8-0). 19H/7A at a rate of 73.1 with an overall non conference record of (20-6) and a non conference home record of (18-1).  Of the non-conference games schedule versus BCS programs since 2006 are: Auburn A along with Louisville, UCLA and Miami(Fla.) all H and A.
  6. Missouri(4-4, SEC). 18H/5A at a rate of 78.2% with an overall non conference record  of (22-1) and a non conference home record of (18-0).  Of the non-conference games schedule versus BCS programs since 2006 are: Mississippi H/A, Illinois 1H/2A and Arizona State A.
  7. Nebraska(6-2, Big 10). 17H/4A at a rate of 80.9% with an overall non conference record of (17-4) and non conference home record of (15-2).  Of the non-conference games schedule versus BCS programs since 2006 are: Washington A, Wake Forest A and both USC and Virginia Tech H and A. Nebraska did schedule 12 Non-BCS programs all at Home.
  8. Oklahoma(5-2). 19H/7A at a rate of 73.1% with an overall non conference record of (22-4) and a non conference home record of (17-2).  Of the non-conference games schedule versus BCS programs since 2006 are: Oregon A, Notre Dame H along with Washington, Cincinnati, Miami(Fla.) and Florida State all H and A.
  9. Oklahoma State(5-2). 20H/6A at a rate of 76.9% with an overall non conference record of (21-5) and a non conference home record of (19-1).  Of the non-conference games schedule versus BCS programs since 2006 are: Georgia, Washington State and Arizona all H and A. Oklahoma State did schedule more Non-BCS programs  with 15 games.
  10. Texas(6-2). 20H/6A at a rate of 76.9% with an overall non conference record of (24-2) and a non conference home record of (18-2).  Of the non-conference games schedule versus BCS programs since 2006 are: UCLA H/A, Ohio State and Arkansas H and Mississippi A. Texas did schedule the most Non-BCS programs with 19 15H/4A however Texas only scheduled 1 FCS program since 2006.
  11. Texas A&M(6-2, SEC). 20H/3A at a rate of 86.9% with an overall non conference record of (17-6) and non conference home record of (16-4).  Of the non-conference games schedule versus BCS programs since 2006 are: Arkansas 2H/1A and Miami(Fla) H/A. Texas A&M did schedule 15 Non-BCS programs with 14H/1A.
  12. Texas Tech(6-2). 17h/9A at a rate of 65.3% with an overall non conference record of (24-2) and a non conference home record of (17-0). The interesting fact about Texas Tech  is that since 2006, they have never scheduled a BCS program during the review of this data. The last BCS program Texas Tech scheduled were Mississippi and North Carolina State both A in 2003. Texas Tech does possess the highest rate of Non-BCS games scheduled within the Big 12 at 18 but 9H/9A.

What this data reveals is that the evidence does support that the Big 12 is slightly better than the SEC. The Big 12’s non conference home record is comparable and slightly better than the SEC’s. The Big 12 possesses a non-conference home record of 86.9% vs. the SEC at 86.1% since 2006.  The Big 12 significantly schedules less FCS opponents, schedules a fair and credible BCS non conference schedule not only H/A  but travels to both coasts and all 5 other FBS/BCS conferences along with scheduling more Non-BCS programs away than the SEC. The SEC has never scheduled the Big 10.  The facts are, both the Big 10 and Big 12 are slightly better than the SEC. Like the Big 10, the Big 12 does reciprocate more in their non conference scheduling practices scheduling a H and A series with BCS programs. The Big 12 currently does not possess any program with a non conference scheduling rate higher than 76.9% where as 75% of the SEC possesses a rate greater than 76.9%.

Many sports analysts from major television networks try to discredit specific conferences and programs because they fail to investigate the vital components of every FBS programs true credibility and constantly discuss the “body of work”. Yes, wins and losses do indicate the teams credibility for that specific season. However, with the current system in use to determine the champion in college football, specific FBS programs and conferences have significantly figured out how to manipulate the computerized system to skew the statistical numerical data in their favor. With the evidence supporting that 2 FBS conferences are slightly better than the SEC, then ask yourself this:

If the SEC claims to be the best FBS conference in college football, what fears does the SEC possess about scheduling more non conference games away at FBS conference sites and NOT in neutral sites? What they fear is losing that false sense of perception of being the best and possibly losing that significant opportunity to secure the most bowl berths and the largest bowl financial payouts. The question I have asked many SEC writers and major television sports analysts is, why didn’t Alabama play Michigan in Ann Arbor? Is playing in front of 110K+ fans not good enough or did they fear losing the first game of the season on the road at Michigan which would ultimately and significantly decreasing their chances of playing for the national title. Thus discrediting their false sense of credibility and reign in the FBS. Even at the professional level of sports does not possess 100% control of their schedule. Should the Miami Heat say” no we cant play the Lakers in LA, they must come here or we can play in Orlando”.  Should the NY Giants tell the NFL, “wait we play 16 games we get 13 of them at home. We are the defending champions everyone else accept our divisional opponents must travel to us”. Yes the professional levels of sports and college sports is big business and about money. The professional leagues play a 50/50 schedule and still makes money. What makes the SEC special, they make more money and believe they are entitled to scheduling privileges over any other FBS program. The facts supports that the SEC is hedonistically driven and fear losing that presitigious reputation and money.

Those are the fact……


BCS: Big 10 more credible than the SEC

In response to a twitter post from the writers of the Big 10 Conference in which the Big 10 was being criticized for their non-conference schedule being soft or lacking credibility. Contrary to dis-belief but the Big 10 is significantly better than the SEC in many categorical variables which would determine credibility.

Taking the same reference point as the recent October 19, 2012 article written by the author from the Tampa Bay Times as 2006, which I used as the examination point for the SEC in the previous post. This is what I have examined using the same historical facts and non-conference scheduling information about the Big 10.

Since 2006, The Big 10 has NOT significantly increased or decreased their scheduling of FCS opponents. In 2006, the Big 10 scheduled 8 FCS programs and in 2012, the exact same number. Since 2006, the Big 10’s record is 236-81 with a win loss percentage rate of 74.9%. Comparing the Big 10 to the SEC, the Big 10 scheduled 327 non conference games. Since 2006, The Big 10 scheduled 37 less non-conference home games compared to the SEC. This indicates that the Big 10 took more risks playing more road games versus non-conference opponents. By examining each level of program labels, which was determined by the NCAA and BCS committees, the Big 10 scheduled significantly different than the SEC within their non-conference schedule. Since 1996, the Big 10 scheduled 62 FCS programs, which is significantly less than the SEC’s 72. Of the non conference games schedules versus Non BCS programs, the Big 10 scheduled 162 with 129 at home and 33 away at Non-BCS programs. That’s a difference of 14 more road games away at Non-BCS programs than the SEC. The non conferences games scheduled versus BCS programs by the Big 10, is much less than the SEC. The Big 10 scheduled 91 non conference games versus BCS program with 47 scheduled home and 44 away. The BCS numbers translates into a 51.6% which indicates they possess no home field advantage versus BCS programs. However the Big 10 does possess an overall home field advantage within their non conference scheduling practices possessing a rate of 75.5%. Still not as hedonistic as the SEC.

Let review the Big 10 compared to the SEC as in the previous post.

  1. Illinois(2-5, 2012). 23H/5A at a rate of 82.1%, with an overall non-conference record of (15-13) and a non-conference home record of (14-9). Of the non-conference games scheduled versus BCS programs since 2006 are: Syracuse, Arizona State both H/A, Rutgers A, Cincinnati A and Missouri 3H/1A.
  2. Indiana(2-5). 18H/10A at a rate of 64.2% with an overall non conference record of (18-10) and  non conference home record of (13-5). Of the non-conference games scheduled versus BCS programs since 2006 are: Virginia 2A and Connecticut H.  Indiana scheduled more Non-BCS programs due to the fact that non of the BCS programs wants to schedule an FBS/BCS opponent due to credibility.
  3. Iowa(4-3). 22H/6A at a rate of 84.6% with an overall non conference record of (21-7) and a non conference home record of (19-3). Of the non-conference games scheduled versus BCS programs since 2006 are: Arizona, Syracuse and Pittsburgh all H/A with the traditional Iowa State rivalry being   4H/3A.
  4. Michigan(5-2). 23H/5A at a rate of 82.1% with an overall non conference record of (21-7) and a non conference home record of (19-4). Of the non-conference games scheduled versus BCS programs since 2006 are: Alabama A, Oregon, Vanderbilt and Connecticut all H along with the traditional rivalry with Notre Dame of 3H/4A. Yes the games versus Alabama is an away game since Michigan had to travel 5X’s further than Alabama.
  5. Michigan State(4-4). 23H/5A at a rate of 75.0% with an overall non conference record of (22-6) and non conference home record of (18-3). Of the non-conference games scheduled versus BCS programs since 2006 are: Pittsburgh H/A, California A and the traditional rivalry with Notre Dame with 4H/3A.
  6. Minnesota(4-3). 20H/8A at a rate of 71.4% with an overall non conference record of (17-11) and a non conference home record of (12-8). Of the non-conference games scheduled versus BCS programs since 2006 are: California, Syracuse and USC all H/A.  a nNorthwestern(6-2). 19H/9A at a rate of 67.6% with an overall non conference record of (23-5) and a non conference home record of (17-2). Of the non-conference games scheduled versus BCS programs since 2006 are: Duke and Syracuse both H/A, Boston College A and Vanderbilt A.
  7. Northwestern(6-2). 19H/9A at a rate of 67.6% with an overall non conference record of (23-5) and a non conference home record of (17-2). Of the non-conference games scheduled versus BCS programs since 2006 are: Duke and Syracuse both H/A and Boston College and Vanderbilt both A.
  8. Ohio State(8-0). 24H/4A at a rate of 85.7% with an overall non conference scheduling record of (25-3) and a non conference home record of (23-1). Of the non-conference games scheduled versus BCS programs since 2006 are: Miami(Fla.) and USC both H/A, California, Colorado and Cincinnati all H and concluding with Texas and Washington both A.
  9. Penn State(5-2). 22H/6A at a rate of 72.4% with an overall non conference record of (23-5) and a non conference home record of (20-2). Of the non-conference games scheduled versus BCS programs since 2006 are: Notre Dame 1H/2A, Alabama H/A, Oregon State, Syracuse and Temple all H with Virginia A. I believe that when Alabama played at Penn State and not in a neutral site. Alabama’s only real road non conference game that required them to travel further than 800 miles.
  10. Purdue(3-4). 21H/8A at a rate of 72.4% with an overall non conference record of (17-12) and a non conference home record of (16-5). Of the non-conference games scheduled versus BCS programs since 2006 are: Oregon H/A and the traditional rivalry versus Notre Dame 4H/3A.
  11. Wisconsin(6-2). 22H/6A at a rate of 84.6% with an overall non conference record of (27-1) and a non conference home record of (22-0). Of the non-conference games scheduled versus BCS programs since 2006 are: Oregon State H/A, Washington State H and Arizona State A.
  12. Nebraska(5-2) 6H/2A at a rate of 75.0% with an overall non conference record of (7-1) and a non conference home record of (6-0). Of the non-conference games scheduled versus BCS programs since 2006 are: Washington H and UCLA A.

NOTE: Nebraska’s Big 10 credibility and validity to the Big 10 cannot be determined since their is limited numerical data to assess for Nebraska within the Big10. Nebraska’s FBS credibility is more a Big 12 review. Thus I am not saying that Nebraska is not credible or valid to the Big 10.

What does this information tell us? It significantly indicates that the Big 10 is a more credible FBS conference more so than the SEC. The Big 10 schedules more BCS games both home and away in a  more fair reciprocal scheduling format of H and A. The Big 10 schedules less FCS programs and would prefer to schedule more significant FBS opponents in 3 different FBS conferences such as the PAC10/12, Big 12, Big East and Notre Dame. Which every one in the college football world accounts them as credible not because of the name, but history, tradition and national exposure they bring. The Big 1o does not possess any program with a home field scheduling advantage more than 90% like the SEC which possesses 3 (Alabama, Arkansas and Auburn). The Big 10 also possesses a lower non  conference home record compared to the SEC, all due to the fact of playing less non conference home games and significantly more credible FBS programs in a reciprocal H/A non conference scheduling format.

With that said, I can determine that those who are trying to dis-credit the Big 10’s non conference credibility are located in a specific southern part of the United States.  Needing to self examine  their own non conference scheduling practices before throwing stones at others. The data does suggest that the Big 10 is much better, not significantly better, than the SEC within these categorical variables.

Those are the facts and the truths. Like Sgt. Joe Friday said ” Just the facts ma’am.. just the facts”….