The new AD has new ideas and with that it sounds like we may be changing up how we schedule for football.
Just curious how everyone really feels about scheduling philosophies. I'll offer a few alternatives here.
Note: All choices have an FCS game yearly to maximize home games and they are based on a 6 year scheduling cycle (which allows for 2-for-1 and 1-for-1 series to align).
Edit: "Mid-tier" P5 in this respect would be teams that consistently finish between 11-25 in the final rankings. Teams that would turn some heads if we beat, and who might be willing to schedule us on a 2-for-1 basis but would never even think about it if it were 1-for-1. This is to distinguish from "top 10" teams like Alabama and Ohio State who we have no shot of ever getting to visit the Bounce House.
Option 1) Current philosophy: With our current strict 1-for-1 scheduling philosophy, we would alternate between 7 home games and 6 home games. We have a "P5" home game yearly, but it is likely against a lower tier team and may include Boise or BYU as the "P5" type team since the P5 conference teams willing to schedule us on a 1-for-1 basis seems to be drying up.
Option 2) New Philosophy A: We would have two 2-for-1 P5 series going at a time and keep the 1-for-1 with an FAU/FIU type program, we would have 6 home games in 5 out of 6 years and one year with 7 home games. The P5 teams we might be able to sign would likely be a step up from the current crop we're able to schedule. You might be tempted to say we should do a 1-for-1 with a low level P5 instead of with FAU/FIU, but if we start accepting 2-for-1 with mid-tier P5 teams I can guarantee you our 1-for-1 P5 opportunities will become even more non-existent than they already are.
Option 3) New Philosophy B: Same as option 2 but ditch the FAU/FIU game for another 2-for-1 series with a mid-tier P5. So the OOC schedule would be three 2-for-1 P5 games plus FCS. This would give us 6 home games yearly, with one of those being a P5 team.
Option 4) New Philosophy C: The "Play the best, beat the best" schedule. We aren't getting committee darlings like Alabama/Clemson/Ohio State/Notre Dame in the Bounce House. To play them we'd have to agree to a 1-and-done buy game. So this option would have 1 buy game per year against one of those teams, plus two 2-for-1 series against mid-tier P5. We would have 6 home games in 4 out of 6 years, and only 5 home games for the other 2 years.
Just curious how everyone really feels about scheduling philosophies. I'll offer a few alternatives here.
Note: All choices have an FCS game yearly to maximize home games and they are based on a 6 year scheduling cycle (which allows for 2-for-1 and 1-for-1 series to align).
Edit: "Mid-tier" P5 in this respect would be teams that consistently finish between 11-25 in the final rankings. Teams that would turn some heads if we beat, and who might be willing to schedule us on a 2-for-1 basis but would never even think about it if it were 1-for-1. This is to distinguish from "top 10" teams like Alabama and Ohio State who we have no shot of ever getting to visit the Bounce House.
Option 1) Current philosophy: With our current strict 1-for-1 scheduling philosophy, we would alternate between 7 home games and 6 home games. We have a "P5" home game yearly, but it is likely against a lower tier team and may include Boise or BYU as the "P5" type team since the P5 conference teams willing to schedule us on a 1-for-1 basis seems to be drying up.
- 15 out-of-conference home games, 9 away games per 6 year cycle (63% Home games)
- Alternating years of 7 and 6 home games per year
- Two "P5" type games per year (none against "Top 10" type teams), but mostly against lower-tier P5 and may even include Boise or BYU
- "P5" type home game yearly
Option 2) New Philosophy A: We would have two 2-for-1 P5 series going at a time and keep the 1-for-1 with an FAU/FIU type program, we would have 6 home games in 5 out of 6 years and one year with 7 home games. The P5 teams we might be able to sign would likely be a step up from the current crop we're able to schedule. You might be tempted to say we should do a 1-for-1 with a low level P5 instead of with FAU/FIU, but if we start accepting 2-for-1 with mid-tier P5 teams I can guarantee you our 1-for-1 P5 opportunities will become even more non-existent than they already are.
- 13 out-of conference home games, 11 away games per 6 year cycle (54% Home games)
- 6 home games most years, 7 home games 1 out of 6 years
- Two mostly mid-tier P5 games per year (none against "Top 10" type teams)
- P5 home game in 4 out of 6 years, mostly against mid-tier P5 programs
Option 3) New Philosophy B: Same as option 2 but ditch the FAU/FIU game for another 2-for-1 series with a mid-tier P5. So the OOC schedule would be three 2-for-1 P5 games plus FCS. This would give us 6 home games yearly, with one of those being a P5 team.
- 12 out-of conference home games, 12 away games per 6 year cycle (50% Home games)
- 6 home games yearly
- Three mostly mid-tier P5 games per year (none against "Top 10" type teams)
- P5 home game yearly, mostly against mid-tier P5 programs
Option 4) New Philosophy C: The "Play the best, beat the best" schedule. We aren't getting committee darlings like Alabama/Clemson/Ohio State/Notre Dame in the Bounce House. To play them we'd have to agree to a 1-and-done buy game. So this option would have 1 buy game per year against one of those teams, plus two 2-for-1 series against mid-tier P5. We would have 6 home games in 4 out of 6 years, and only 5 home games for the other 2 years.
- 10 out-of conference home games, 14 away games in 6 year cycle (42% Home games)
- 6 home games in 4 out of 6 years, 5 home games in 2 out of 6 years.
- "Top 10" team yearly for an AWAY game
- Two other mostly mid-tier P5 games per year
- P5 home game in 4 out of 6 years, mostly against mid-tier P5 programs
Last edited:
