 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
Article CategoriesAFM Magazine
|
Method to the MadnessPositive scheduling can be the key to winning, increased revenues and national rankings. A look at the Big XII conference and how scheduling strategies affected records during the past season.by: AFM Editorial Staff © More from this issue 
This article is an analytical look at scheduling practices of some major college football programs. Some teams seek to insure victories. Other schools look for tough opponents for one of three reasons: 1) to prepare for the balance of the schedule; 2) enhance exposure for the program; or 3) increase revenues. While we are not advocating any one type of philosophy, we do understand that a program's success or lack thereof can be determined by the scheduling policies put in place. The reality of college football is that it is a business, and teams adopt scheduling policies as a part of their overall "business plan." Teams playing in BCS conferences may well realize that the road to big paydays runs through conference championships, and scheduling difficult non-conference games is an unnecessary and unwarranted risk. Given the nature of the competition to play in the BCS Bowl games and the millions of dollars at stake, teams oftentimes adopt a philosophy designed to insure non-conference wins. However, some teams seek fame and fortune through a much more treacherous path of extremely competitive intra-sectional contests. Great arguments can be made for each philosophical choice, but the risks and rewards can be quantified and that is what we have attempted to do in this look at the scheduling dilemma. Sure every fan would love to see Texas versus Notre Dame for every non-conference match up, but the realities of today's market make these types of "marquee" games difficult to schedule in the face of the hazards of losing the contest and the resulting effects on bottom-line revenues. Although this article focuses on college football, the thought process is appropriate for any team, high school or college, looking for ways to develop an overall approach to scheduling. The concepts of positive, negative and comparable scheduling detailed in the article are applicable to teams at any level. It is up to the schedule maker to use these concepts, assess the risks and rewards of games with the financial realities inherent in every program. There are as many differing philosophies to scheduling as there are offensive and defensive schemes. Play the patsies to allow the players to gain confidence. Schedule difficult early season non-conference games to toughen your team up for conference play. Competing in intra-sectional match ups with marquee programs will build exposure for the program and help recruiting. Just win and recognition will follow. Yet, there are some truths that can be determined by a close examination of scheduling practices and policies. These findings can have a dramatic impact on a team's thought process concerning future opponents. By defining exactly what constitutes "positive" scheduling as opposed to "negative" scheduling practices, it is possible to quantify the results of a schedule of games. It is readily discernable that a positive schedule translates into more wins, increased opportunities for national rankings and bowl appearances, and does not diminish the stature of a program in any measurable way. It is also apparent that positive schedule practices do not occur as a result of luck, but are well thought out plans for success. In order to examine the issue of scheduling practices, we have chosen to review the 12 members of the Big XII conference and their respective schedules and results for last season (2000) as an example of the effect of non-conference games on overall records. Positive vs. Negative For the purposes of this review, we have broken down schedules into three separate and distinct components: positive scheduling, negative scheduling, and comparable scheduling. We have defined the scheduling process as follows: positive scheduling occurs when a team plays a non-conference opponent at home, and the home team "should" win (i.e. the home team is by history, conference affiliation, manpower, etc., the better team). Negative scheduling occurs when either a team plays away games at the opponent's home stadium versus an out of conference team, even if the scheduling team is ostensibly better than the specific opponent they are traveling to play, or the traveling team brings in a superior opponent for a home game. Comparable scheduling occurs when a team plays a similarly situated opponent (i.e. a team that is comparable in conference affiliation, budgets, national prominence, talent, etc.) for national or TV exposure-home or away. Obviously, we have focused upon non-conference games because they are the only games a school has control over in the scheduling process. The choice of a positive opponent as opposed to a negative opponent or comparable opponent can and, as you will see, does have an enormous effect upon a team's likelihood for success. In order to easily understand the data regarding non-conference scheduling we have established the following color code to indicate the type of non-conference foe: The Big XII in 2000 For the last several years, national football writers and television commentators have droned on endlessly about Kansas State's schedule and how it has kept the Wildcats from more meaningful bowl games. While it is true that in 1998 Kansas State, ranked No. 2 at the time, lost the Big 12 Championship Game and then was passed over for a BCS bowl despite a final No. 4 ranking, overall it is hard to argue with the position taken by coach Bill Snyder and athletic director Max Urick. The story has been oft told of Snyder's arrival in Manhattan and what he has accomplished with his dogmatic coaching excellence and his overall plan to bring K-State to national prominence. Clearly, part of the master plan was a design for more wins through scheduling. The bottom-line for K-State is that the plan has worked. In 2000, K-State played four positive games as their non-conference portion of their schedule and won all four. The other members of the conference mirrored the results accomplished by K-State. By using our definition of positive scheduling, the Big XII was 25-0 (100%) in these non-conference games. And, the two participants in the league title game, Oklahoma and Kansas State, were perfect in non-conference games, a combined 7-0, and neither team played a negative scheduled game. On the other hand, each Big XII team that played a negative scheduled game did not qualify for a bowl game (Baylor, Kansas, Oklahoma State, Colorado and Missouri). Overall the league was 1-7 (12%) in negative scheduled games, with Baylor losing to Minnesota at home, Kansas losing at SMU, Oklahoma State losing to Southern Mississippi at home, Colorado lost to Washington at home and to USC on the road, and Missouri lost to Clemson and Michigan State on the road. The lone win came when Baylor beat North Texas on the road. Texas and Mack Brown learned the danger of comparable scheduling when they traveled to Palo Alto and were upset by Stanford. This loss cost UT and the conference millions of dollars, because without this loss, Texas would have undoubtedly been a BCS bowl team at 10-1. However, the Longhorns were on the outside looking in with a 9-2 record and a Holiday Bowl game with Oregon. Overall, in 2000, the conference was 2-3 (40%) in comparable scheduled games. Over the long Haul In 2000, the astute schedule makers in the Big XII were rewarded, whereas the risk-takers were penalized. But, last year was no exception; it was the rule. For example, by looking at two of the league's teams (Texas Tech and Kansas State) over the past five years, you can see what the results of planned scheduling produced. From 1996 through 2000, K-State played 16 non-conference games. All 16 were positive scheduling and resulted in a 16-0 (100%) record, five-straight bowl appearances, and exponential increase in revenues for KSU in ticket sales, bowl money, licensed merchandise, etc. Also, K-State has put itself in a position to secure better student-athletes as a result of improved records and national stature. KSU is now a permanent member of the top 25 teams in the nation, and has been in a position to play for a national title in three of the last five campaigns. On the other hand, Texas Tech also played 16 games during the same five-year period, playing 11 positive scheduled games and 5 negative scheduled contests. The Red Raiders were 9-2 (82%) in the positive scheduled games, and 2-3 (40%) in the negative scheduled tilts (winning versus North Texas and Louisiana-Lafayette on the road, and losing to Tennessee, Georgia and Arizona State on the road). Texas Tech went to three bowl games in that five-year span. It is certainly arguable that had Tennessee, Georgia and Arizona State been replaced with positive scheduled games, Texas Tech would have been in a position to go to a bowl game all five years, and would have positioned itself for more prestigious bowl games in the years it did go to post season play. So, what conclusions can be drawn from this review of one of the top football conferences in the nation - The Big XII? Teams that practiced positive scheduling were extremely successful at a rate of 25-0 (100%). Teams that took the risk of implementing comparable scheduling were less than average at a rate of 2-3 (40%). The most definitive fact is the impact of negative scheduling in which Big XII teams were a horrific 1-7 (12.5%). The lesson is: there is a method to the madness. 1. Positive scheduling 2. Negative scheduling 3. Comparable scheduling BIG XII TEAMS NON-CONFERENCE SCHEDULE
Positive Scheduling , 25-0 (100%) Negative Scheduling ,1-7 (12%) Comparable Schduling , 2-3 (40%)
1. Positive Scheduling , 48-0 (100%) 2. Negative Scheduling ,4-5 (12%) 3. Comparable Schduling , 14-5* (40%) * All 5 losses were on the road. |
Digital Download - 304 Pages of Football Forms for the Winning Coach
|
| HOME |
MAGAZINE |
SUBSCRIBE | ONLINE COLUMNISTS | COACHING VIDEOS |
Copyright 2024, AmericanFootballMonthly.com
All Rights Reserved