Revisiting the Cupcake Issue

The addition of a 12th game in 2006 has been nothing short of a scam perpetrated on fans. While paying customers were hoping for great intersectional matchups, big-time athletic directors and coaches saw something else.

Add a cupcake opponent to the home schedule, get an easy victory, make millions for the department and keep those rollover contracts in working order. Fat City! Who cares if the spring scrimmage was more competitive than the cupcake that was added to the schedule? If a team can go 4-0 in nonconference play, a mere 2-6 mark in conference gets you to 6-6, the magic record needed to earn a postseason berth to some outpost like Shreveport.

To top it off, those fools behind the BCS formula won't penalize you for playing a team from Division I-AA. So why not schedule two games against I-AA opponents?

The problem has become so widespread that even ESPN is trying to broker nonconference games between BCS teams just so it has something resembling decent programming.

Meanwhile, prices for season tickets continue to skyrocket, and if you want anything resembling a decent seat, fork over half the bank account to the alumni association.

Yes, it's one big scam.

The latest evidence of how teams abuse the system comes from Jon Solomon of the Birmingham News. He examined the nonconference schedules of teams from BCS conferences since the addition of the 12th game in 2006 through the 2008 season. His analysis supports our earlier arguments on not only cupcake opponents, but teams who refuse to travel (SEC, baby!).

There is a database of all the BCS teams off the Solomon link. In addition, here is a breakdown of the best and the worst in BCS nonconference scheduling.

Perfect Records (With Opponents' Winning Pct.)
T-1. USC, 9-0 (.530)
T-1. Florida, 12-0 (.520)
T-1. Boston College, 12-0 (.477)
T-1. LSU, 12-0 (.450)
T-1. Missouri, 12-0 (.436)
T-1. Wisconsin, 12-0 (.380)

Best Winning Pct. By Opponents
1. Washington, .677
2. Oregon State, .661
3. North Carolina, .656

Worst Winning Pct. By Opponents
1. Alabama, .365
2. Northwestern, .370
3. Wisconsin, .380

Most Games vs. BCS Conference Opponents
1. Syracuse, 9
T-2. Louisville, 8
T-2. North Carolina, 8

Fewest Games vs. BCS Conference Opponents
T-1. Texas Tech, 0
T-1. Wisconsin, 0
T-3. Arizona, 1
T-3. Minnesota, 1
T-3. Indiana, 1

Most I-AA Opponents
T-1. Georgia Tech, 4
T-1. Texas Tech, 4
3. Many schools with 3

Fewest I-AA Opponents
T-1. Tennessee, 0
T-1. Michigan State, 0
T-1. USC, 0
T-1. Stanford, 0
T-1. UCLA, 0
T-1. Washington, 0

Most Away Games (Counting Neutral Sites)
T-1. South Florida, 8
T-1. Cincinnati, 8
T-3. Colorado, 6
T-3. Louisville, 6
T-3. Syracuse, 6
T-3. West Virginia, 6

Fewest Away Games (Counting Neutral Sites)
T-1. Arkansas, 1
T-1. Auburn, 1
T-1. Georgia, 1
T-1. LSU, 1
T-1. Arizona State, 1

Most Miles Traveled (1-Way)
1. Washington, 8,978
2. Oregon State, 8,825
3. Cincinnati, 8,365

Fewest Miles Traveled (1-Way)
1. LSU, 82
2. Kentucky, 154
3. Florida, 304

Comments

[BradG]

So is that alabama stat before or after you take away the 21 wins?

[PantherHawk]

Fewest Games vs. BCS Conference Opponents
T-1. Texas Tech, 0
T-1. Wisconsin, 0
T-3. Arizona, 1
T-3. Minnesota, 1
T-3. Indiana, 1
__________________________
goofers did a great job disguising their usual cupcake derby this season:

1. SDSU FCS-nuff said
2. Syracuse-yes, goofers, McNabb has graduated
3. Air Force-pound those chests over a "major" mid-major---they are still a mid-major.
4. Cal-always inconsistant and they never play well on the road.

[Beavis]

Is there really any need to revisit this issue? No one cares. Everyone's getting rich and we, the fans, keep buying tickets. Until ticket sales start to slip because of this its a non-issue.

Can't we go back to talking about how slow the Big 10 is or Erin Andrews or something?

[HudiBlitz]

“Is there really any need to revisit this issue? No one cares. Everyone's getting rich and we, the fans, keep buying tickets. Until ticket sales start to slip because of this its a non-issue.”

Actually, it is an issue, Beavis. If the past eight years should have taught you anything, it is that the Invisible Hand is not infallible. The NCAA and BCS should be dictating that (a) 1-AA games don’t count toward bowl eligibility and that (b) no program should be allowed to play more than half, let alone two thirds, of its games at home. Let the programs make their money within that framework.

[Beavis]

The NCAA and BCS should dictate those things why? Because you say so? Because this blog says so? The fact that you don't like these lop-sided match-ups isn't a good enough reason.

It's a total cliche but money talks and bull s#!t walks. CF has never been as popular as it is right now. Until that changes or fans quit buying tickets there is no issue.

[HudiBlitz]

“The NCAA and BCS should dictate those things why? Because you say so? Because this blog says so?” No, the point is that the NCAA and BCS (or whatever its successor would be) would have to dictate this to make it happen precisely because—as you opine—the current system is profitable.

“The fact that you don't like these lop-sided match-ups isn't a good enough reason.” No, it’s not, but it should be. Rest assured, I fully understand that people like me are vastly outnumbered by slack-jawed, vacant-eyed yokels and chest-thumping imbeciles.* And as long as those people can afford to take on a little more credit card debt, the big-time programs will keep profiting and will have no reason to change their business model.

Schedule reform would create a fairer and more interesting sport. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not arguing that it’s going to happen, and I’m not stating that it would be more profitable.

- - - - -

*The truly scary thing is that the college football fan base is vastly more intelligent than the NFL fan base, despite the fact that there is overlap between the two groups.