Big 12 scheduling needs a makeover

MeanGreen61 · June 17, 2005

By BERRY TRAMEL

The Oklahoman

13-JUN-05

Harry Birdwell will leave a void in Oklahoma State athletics. He has done a fine job as OSU's athletic director and won't easily be replaced.

But there could be a benefit to Birdwell's departure. OSU's football schedule could stage a revival.

Birdwell and ex-coach Les Miles stated their intention of dumbing down the Cowboys' nonconference opponents. And then did what they said. OSU this season plays the embarrassing trio of Montana State, Florida Atlantic and Arkansas State.

The Cowboys' only salvation is that some Big 12 foes play an even more disgraceful threesome. Texas Tech hosts Sam Houston State, Florida International and Indiana State. Baylor plays SMU, Samford and Army, a decent slate if it's 1946.

Sad truth is, virtually all the Big 12 has given up pretense and has resorted to scheduling automatic victories. Schools like Texas, OU, Texas A&M and Colorado continue to play one marquee non-conference game a year but don't want to tread too far from shore.

This is a far cry from 1976, when Missouri's non-league foes included USC, Ohio State, Illinois and North Carolina. Or 1978, when Baylor played Georgia, Ohio State and Kentucky. Or 1974, when Texas A&M played Clemson, LSU, Washington and Kansas. Or 1970, when Texas played UCLA, Oklahoma and California. Or 1971, when the Sooners played USC, Pitt, SMU and Texas.

Football was different in the '70s. Less posturing. More good games. Less artificial success.

The current scheduling wave is fueled in part by economics. More home games are needed to fund ever-expanding budgets, so fewer home-and-home series are scheduled. Schools from the cartel conferences buy smaller opponents and thus victories.

But don't blame it all on money. Missouri played at Troy last season. Texas has played at Rice; Iowa State went to Ohio U. OSU is playing at Florida Atlantic this year and Arkansas State in a season to come. Texas A&M went to Louisiana-Lafayette.

Big-time college football has lost its zest for weekly competition. Under the guise that leagues are tougher now, schedule-makers have softened September.

Are conferences more rugged? Perhaps. The Big 12 in the 21st century is better than either the Big Eight or Southwest conferences of the 1970s and '80s. But not way better.

Big Eight teams ranked 1-2-3 in the final AP poll of 1971. The SWC had four teams ranked in the top 14 in 1978. The Big Eight had five teams in the final top 20 of 1976.

Yet those teams did not go looking to bully smaller foes outside the conference.

They had too much pride. Shame is in short supply in college football these days. How else to explain the frequent arrangements of Big 12 teams playing Division I-AA squads? At best, they are scrimmages; at worst, scripted exhibitions, not far removed from pro wrestling or Globetrotters-Washington Generals epics.

Birdwell's explanation always was that if OSU beats three rum-dums in September, Cowboy fans won't care in December, if they're vacationing in an exotic bowl locale.

Perhaps fans don't clue in to such soft success. But the players do. Players know that beating Montana State or Sam Houston is not an honest day's work.

They do know when they've played a worthy foe. Which is why even nonconference losses to Louisiana Tech and UCLA didn't wreck OSU's 2002 season; the Cowboys still came within three points of winning the Big 12 South. Which is why OSU's victory at UCLA last September was the best Cowboy feat of 2004.

Do not be deceived by the much-embraced Bill Snyder theory, that scheduling victories leads to much-needed confidence so that programs can be built.

Yes, Kansas State rode the scalps of yahoos to precious victories in the 1990s. But KState tried the same thing in the 1970s, and it didn't work.

In the 1970s, while most schools would have been mortified to play a steady diet of overmatched foes, KSU tried that very tact. In the '70s, out of 40 non-league games total, Kansas played 37 against teams from the elite conferences or elite independents. OU played 36 and Missouri 35.

But Kansas State played just 14. And it didn't do the Wildcats any good. They stunk most of the '70s.

So while yes, scheduling light worked for Iowa State in the '70s (four bowl games, in years in which the Cyclones went 14-1 vs. teams outside the elite leagues), scheduling tough worked for Baylor. The Bears under Grant Teaff became a SWC force in the '70s and annually played solid non-conference foes.

Missouri in the '70s played all comers - Alabama, Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, USC, Notre Dame, Stanford, Mississippi, North Carolina, Arizona State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Cal and Air Force. Missouri in the Big 12 era prefers Eastern Illinois and Ball State. Yet Mizzou was much more competitive in the '70s.

Kansas in the '70s played Michigan, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Wisconsin, UCLA, Miami, Washington, Syracuse, Texas Tech and Florida State. KU in the Big 12 era prefers Jacksonville State and Cal State-Northridge. Yet Kansas was much more competitive in the '70s.

The correlation between easy schedules building into conference success is not apparent. As much evidence suggests, the tougher the schedule, the better your building.

Perhaps the next Oklahoma State athletic director will see the light.

grad88 · June 17, 2005

The main force in all this is the bowl system. As long as bowl committees would rather have a 6-5 BigXII or SEC team over a 9-2 nonbcs team, we will see this kind of mindset. The rational is that they can be less than 500 in conference play but still go to a bowl game and keep the coaches job and the alumni happy.

I think a rule needs to be put in place for the long-term future of college football that a big dog program MUST sign at least one home-home contract (AND KEEP IT) each year with a nonbcs program. That way, the nonbcs schools can increase their attendance and stimulate recruiting a little bit.

College football is a little like a national economy and political system. If you don't share the wealth a little bit, the whole system will eventually break down...kind of like the French Revolution. The BCS programs need the nonbcs programs for the long-term health of college football.

It is greed that will eventually destroy the game that I have loved for so long...sounds like the subject of a sermon.

The Voice of Reason · June 17, 2005

The BCS has made cowards of the big programs. The best thing non-BCS schools can do is quit laying down for the BCS guys and demand home games; and, to play each other in out of conference tilts instead of BCS schools. Sure, it's unrealistic, but maybe if enough stand up...nah, non-BCS AD's will always argue that there's too much money to be made in getting creamed year after year.

Edited June 17, 2005 by The Voice of Reason

ArkansasEagle · June 18, 2005

Interesting article, however, they didn't explore the possibilities of some of the non-BCS schools beating up on the "big" boys......OSU will not be the same OSU......look at Troy and Missouri last year......keep watching, sooner or later, the SBC and other conference schools will start beating up on them......who will it be this year?