Helmets Help Frame of Reference

A few weeks ago I saved this link to the 2006 ACC Football Schedule (by football helmets).

Just this week, 850TheBuzz has enhanced the 2006 ACC Football Helmet Schedule with a downloadable schedule. You can click here for it.

A lot of fans (somewhat understandbly) love to criticize NC State’s 2006 Out of Conference schedule despite the fact that So. Miss played in a bowl last year, App State won a national championship, and that we seem to have little control in our discretion to schedule or not schedule ECU.

I think that this graphic representation of other programs’ OOC schedules helps frame a comparable picture for the naysayers. It helps get your mind in a more accurate place to see that Boston College plays Central Michigan, BYU, Maine and Buffalo; Clemson plays Florida Atlantic, La Tech, Temple and in-state rival USC; and Maryland plays William & Mary, MTSU and Florida International along with West Virginia.

Heck, the same Southern Miss that sits as NC State’s toughest OOC game also represents Virginia Tech’s toughest OOC opponent; the Hokies play Northeastern, Cincinnati and Kent State. But…look at the difference in the way that VPI’s schedule is covered – it is called “boring” instead of being deeply criticized as “easy” and such. (Link that includes more comments on football scheduling)

Didn’t George O’Leary’s burgeoning UCF program buy their way out of a game with us this year? Was the Louisville back out for a game last year or this year? What could State have done with an extra game on the schedule instead of being held hostage to a series with ECU. It is nobody at NC State’s fault that ECU is not condisered a tougher game.

'06 Football General

13 Responses to Helmets Help Frame of Reference

  1. spirona 07/09/2006 at 11:09 PM #

    I can’t believe how weak this post is, especially since much of what I read on your site is well-argued and thought it, even if I disagree with it. You deep-sixed your own argument by saying this in the fourth sentence: “A lot of fans (somewhat understandbly)…”. If it’s “somewhat understandbly”, why are you defending State’s schedule? And more importantly, you’re argument is offmark because you assume the criticism of State’s schedule is a one year (this one) phenomenon. Yes, State’s schedule may not be any weaker than other ACC teams this year. The difference is the trend in the Amato years. Amato scheduled cream puffs, plain and simple, and then underacheives against them. Again, I don’t need stats showing me one or two teams in the ACC doing the same thing– that is irrelevant. This is about State. I’m not saying Amato should create a suicide schedule like Bunting has in the recent past (not this year). But State won’t be taken seriously until they quite padding their schedule and beating teams they should easily beat.

    Jeff: First, chill out. I wasn’t “arguing” much of anything. Basically throwing stuff out for random comments. You can make your points about the issues without comments like “how weak the post is”.

    The difference is the trend in the Amato years. Amato scheduled cream puffs, plain and simple, and then underacheives against them.

    That is plain and simply incorrect.

    First…how has he “underachieved” against the cream puffs when his OOC record is fantastic. Does anyone remember the ‘underachieving’ days of getting embarassed by the likes of Baylor (TWICE), Louisville, Purdue and ECU? Amato beat ECU in Charlotte 52-14. The last guy LOST to ECU in Charlotte by an almost similar score.

    Amato has CHOSEN to schedule Notre Dame, Tennessee, Pitt, and Ohio State (with current talks going on with South Carolina). This is in addition to a non-conference schedule that…at the time he scheduled these games….included Virginia Tech, Navy, Central Florida, and Louisville.

    ONCE ALL IS SAID AND DONE..State has ULTIMATELY ended up with a few extra cream puffs on the schedule (like this year). BUT, that is because of changes in schedules created by the teams that we had scheduled…NOT because we didn’t initially schedule tough. Saying that it is a trend to schedule an abundance of cream puffs is just inaccurate. The cream puffs end up replacing the teams that backed out on us.

    You argument basically blames Chuck for VPI becoming a part of the ACC, and therefore not giving him credit for scheduling them OOC. It also blames him for Louisville & Notre Dame cancelling on us. I don’t get that.

  2. BJD95 07/10/2006 at 9:18 AM #

    The 2005 Sagarin rankings for our OOC opponents were 64 (USM), 69 (Appy), 92 (ECU), and 94 (Akron). Any way you slice it, that’s incredibly weak. And we did NOT have to play ECU – this was a game IN ADDITION TO the series we had already agreed to (in order to placate the legislature). Fowler just wanted the revenue he’ll get from a stadium full of riotous Pirate fans (the only group of folks who actually care about seeing this game, esp. as a season finale).

    It is a larger problem that college football is creating some perverse incentives for weak scheduling (easier to be bowl-eligible, revenue, no 16-team playoff to qualify for). That really needs to be addressed or the product is going to get seriously watered down.

  3. ncsslim 07/10/2006 at 9:50 AM #

    I have mixed feelings about this one. As a fan, I cringe at the thought of having to pay to attend games that are neither remotely interesting nor of any potential of being competitive. However, it is obvious that it getting increasingly difficult to schedule enticing home-and-home series, regardless of a single school’s desire to do so in the new age conference (and bowl) set-ups. And, or course, there’s that silly thing about winning some of those games as well. This season seems to be a very good mix of competitive-but-winnable games that are of interest, each of which will help the team prepare for the conference schedule.

    Although I do somewhat agree with spirona’s last statement in that we won’t be taken seriously until we play (and more importantly, are successful against) a tougher schedule, it would seem the point of the original post is that our schedule is certainly (at least) comparable to virtually everyone else in the conference, but why must we be singled out as playing the “weak” schedule? I absolutely have issues with Amato at this point, but I certainly recognize the complications that have played into the schedules we are seeing, and more importantly, this one is just not all that bad.

  4. Jeff 07/10/2006 at 10:10 AM #

    And we did NOT have to play ECU – this was a game IN ADDITION TO the series we had already agreed to (in order to placate the legislature). Fowler just wanted the revenue he’ll get from a stadium full

    BJD, I don’t disagree that the schedule is light this year. I also agree with ^these comments.

    BUT, Chuck has publicly stated that he doesn’t want to play ECU. So, I find it hard for people to criticize Chuck for the schedule in light of the fact that:

    $ some teams that we had scheduled backed out

    $ one national power that we had scheduled became a part of the conference

    $ and Chuck doesn’t want to play ECU but Fowler schedules the game because he is too scared to say no to anyone of power in the state of NC.

    With that said, and in light of the fact that future schedules currently include Louisville, Tennessee & Pittsburgh (while we are talking to Steve Spurrier’s South Carolina)

  5. ncsslim 07/10/2006 at 11:22 AM #

    From a pure fan interest standpoint, I can’t imagine a more dismal OOC schedule than last year, especially with every game being at home (I fully realize it wasn’t planned that way). My evaluation process may be quite numb at this point, but there seem to be more than a few picking us to lose every OOC game on the schedule this year (on an individual basis, not as a whole), and @ USM is not a game that anyone (read, anyone) would take lightly. Also, opening up with an in-state DI-AA champion followed by a histrocally strong mid-major is about as good of a ramp-up to the conference schedule as you will get these days. No doubt, I wish ECU was replaced by a more enticing opponent, but with the game in Hattiesburg (that we will have to play our asses off to win, regardless of respective RPI’s), I’m not sure we need to challenge in addition to a pretty stout conference schedule. Our schedule is not the main impediment to our lack of success on the field. Get solid, stay solid, and things will take care of themselves.

  6. RickJ 07/10/2006 at 2:09 PM #

    The below blurb came from an article in last month Atlanta Journal Constitution regarding the upcoming Georgia Tech – Notre Dame game on 9/2/06:

    “The contract for the Tech-Notre Dame game, signed in 1997 for one game in Atlanta and two in South Bend, Ind., includes a rare clause calling for extra revenue generated by a ticket increase to be split 50-50 by both schools. Typically, the home team gets to keep it all. The average Tech football ticket goes for $38. The average Tech-Notre Dame ticket is $50.

    Radakovich (the new Tech AD) said “it might be another $250,000” paid by Tech to Notre Dame in addition to a $200,000 flat fee called for in the contract.â€?

    Would you sign this deal for NC State? It would be incredible to play Notre Dame on National TV to open our season at home but this is a pretty expensive deal.

  7. RAWFS 07/10/2006 at 2:14 PM #

    I think it is a rotten deal to soak the GT fans for the extra money.

    As for us, it would not surprise me at all, but the fact is that after LTR fees, WPC membership, parking fees and the price of a sheet of ducats, a surcharge on top of that would be an insult.

  8. joe 07/10/2006 at 2:24 PM #

    ND has a long history of getting extra money. Way back in 1975 they played at UNC and the tickets were much higher for that game than any other game that season so UNC could pay them what they required.

  9. TigerFan 07/10/2006 at 6:40 PM #

    Strength of schedule is always an issue that gets me worked up because it is so commonly miscalculated by the media and the NCAA, who uses last year’s record to determine preseason strength of schedule. This guideline is of course ludicrous, as it would tell you that Arkansas State is a bigger challenge than Tennessee.

    That being said, AD’s and those involved in the scheduling process are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Auburn in 2004 had an easy non-conference schedule and was punished for it despite facing a very tough conference schedule. On the flip side, how many times did an out of conference Miami team knock FSU out of the title chase.

    BCS schools optimally would play teams like TCU, Boise State, and the MAC flavor of the month because these teams bring good records and little talent into the BCS team’s home stadium. Unfortunately, there are only so many of these to go around; so many AD’s try to schedule one solid OOC BCS opponent to go along with a three pack of cupcakes. Even if a team wanted to load up on BCS schools, it wouldn’t be easy because there are only so many games to go around, and most schools don’t want more than one tough contest.

    Since we don’t have a playoff system (YET) but we do have a 12 game schedule, my personal opinion is that the BCS conferences should force each team to play another BCS school each year. That is, each BCS school should essentially hand over control of the scheduling of one game per year to a committee, which sets a system of inter-conference match-ups. Of course, home/away would be alternated from year to year. Not only would this give fans some great non-conference games to watch, it would also give the computer models something to work with to normalize the differences in conference strength. This would prevent the nonsense that had the Big 10 as the strongest conference going into the bowl season.

    Now for a matter closer to home… I grew up on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, and have listened to incessant USM propaganda directly from their fans. While USM is a decent mid major, one must separate the myth from reality. The myth is that USM is a giant killer. That perception is based on a few quality upsets during the Brett Favre/Curly Hallman era. The reality is that USM has not beaten a single BCS team with a winning record since Hallman left in 1990. USM benefits by playing lots of big name BCS teams; sometimes they beat them – when the BCS team is having a 3-8, 4-7, or 5-6 season. During those types of seasons, USM has beat Bama, Auburn, LSU, Nebraska, Virginia Tech, and others. But so did everyone else in those years.

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t at all fault NC State for scheduling USM. Despite their inflated image, they are a legitimate out of conference opponent. I wouldn’t discount Akron either. In fact, they may be the optimum out of conference team. They actually won the MAC last year. Further, LSU played Appalachian State last year because a quality team backed out on us. They played us better than a couple of IA schools. The reality is, it’s hard to get the big names on the out of conference schedule and with any school, some years the OOC schedule will be bad.

  10. redfred2 07/10/2006 at 9:42 PM #

    ^BJD95

    “It is a larger problem that college football is creating some perverse incentives for weak scheduling (easier to be bowl-eligible, revenue, no 16-team playoff to qualify for). That really needs to be addressed or the product is going to get seriously watered down.”

    Already is, and NC State are UNC are two of the wettest of all.

    ^ncsslim

    “our schedule is certainly (at least) comparable to virtually everyone else in the conference”

    Why isn’t actually improving the program not the issue here and not being so worried about what everyone else is doing? Why is it somehow a comfort to admit that we can’t even beat UNC on the field but are competing with them in the number of insignificant bowl games?

    If you are going gain anything by losing, it will be at the hands of a stronger team. It doesn’t hurt as badly in the polls and may even help your chances for a bowl game at year end. There is absolutely no advantage gained by losing to a lesser program especially late, or even stomping them into the ground, except to bolster confidence very early on in the season.

    If we happened to have a half way decent season with slight bowl potential, beating a patsy late in the season won’t gain a thing.

    I honestly don’t believe that too many of the better OOC programs would shy away from scheduling NC State right now because of a fear of losing, it’s all about the $$$. Insignificant bowl appearances with their payouts are now the coveted prize for NC State football.

  11. Mr O 07/11/2006 at 7:20 AM #

    UT paid $850,000 to have Washington State come to Knoxville. Another SEC team paid a different mediocre BCS team $800,000 for a home game.

    Everybody wants home games and needs the money from the home games. However, we have a tough situation because we can’t pay like UT to have BCS teams come to Carter Finley.

  12. ncsslim 07/11/2006 at 10:56 AM #

    redfred, although I totally agree with your response (“Why isn’t actually improving the program not the issue here and not being so worried about what everyone else is doing?” to my initial statement (“our schedule is certainly (at least) comparable to virtually everyone else in the conferenceâ€?), I concluded with “Our schedule is not the main impediment to our lack of success on the field. Get solid, stay solid, and things will take care of themselves.”, which I absolutely believe to be the case. Our current schedule will not remotely limit us from being the best we can be at this point in our development (regression?) process. If we can show success at this level, then I believe the argument will be more meaningful as to why we are not playing tougher competition. The main points of my post were a) (I believe) we actually have a reasonably entertaining and productive OOC schedule this time around vs last season, and b) why should we be soley taking the heat for a weak OOC, when every one else is doing the same thing, which I think was the main point of the original post.

  13. redfred2 07/14/2006 at 12:47 AM #

    slim, we’re on the same page. Maybe my thoughts were spilling over from too many previous post I’d read stating weak OOC shedules were the only smart way to go nowdays, basing their beliefs solely on what everyone else is doing. Right now is definitely not a good time for Amato or talent-wise, to make a sacrifice to try to move the program in an upward direction if it means losing more games, but there has to be some sacrifice to get to the next level. I don’t think anyone is willing to give up an invite to a few obscure bowl games, and start laying the real ground work, to make it happen. Mr Swofford and the ACC commitee probably wouldn’t be to keen on it, that’s for sure.

Leave a Reply