Bear Down Wildcats

It feels like we need to start changing our attitude with OOC opponents. I was fine with scheduling 3 duds when we were still battling for 6 wins and a bowl game, but I firmly believe those days are behind us. And that schedule has another 10 win season written all over it. Even without the bye, which sucks.

Does anyone know how far ahead our OOC schedule is set? I seem to remember a BYU game scheduled in Glendale. Do we have any other decent opponents or G5 conference schools on our schedule?

The OOC schedules get set years in advance. The UTSA, UNLV and Nevada games were all scheduled under Livengood and Stoops if I remember right. RichRod inherited the schedule. I don't think we have anything significant coming up until the 2016 BYU game in Glendale, but they're working on it. You have to find schools that have compatible gaps in their schedule, and who are willing to schedule home-and-home games. The one-off games are rare, and even more so if they're not neutral site games.

Have 1 opening in 2016, 2017, and 3 opening in 2019 (play at Hawaii so get to play the 13th game). Might be rough (short time to schedule) but could schedule a home and home against one of the Big schools in 16 and 17. KSU has an opening in those years also....

Honest question, why do we need to schedule harder?

I could be wrong, but I thought I'd heard whispers that Byrne was working on slotting a Big 12 opponent for upcoming openings. K-State is one of the few schools across the country that could accommodate that.

PieceOfMeat wrote:Honest question, why do we need to schedule harder?

One of the first things that gets mentioned when Arizona gets talked about on a national level is "soft out of conference schedule." With the new playoff system, that could end up costing the school an access bowl or even a playoff spot in the future.

azpenguin wrote:

PieceOfMeat wrote:Honest question, why do we need to schedule harder?

One of the first things that gets mentioned when Arizona gets talked about on a national level is "soft out of conference schedule." With the new playoff system, that could end up costing the school an access bowl or even a playoff spot in the future.

Isn't the prevailing theory "win the pac12, get into the CFP" ? If we had 1 loss and win the pac12, I doubt our ooc sos matters.

Get rid of the FCS teams. Playing 3 FBS teams that have a chance at bowl games looks great. Had UTSA not revealed their entire playbook during one game, we could have played 2 bowl teams in out of conference and that would have looked pretty good.

Yes, our OOC sucks, but with no byes during the season, it's for the best. If we had a bye somewhere in the middle, I'd be more concerned about our OOC.

Gilbertcat wrote:Get rid of the FCS teams. Playing 3 FBS teams that have a chance at bowl games looks great. Had UTSA not revealed their entire playbook during one game, we could have played 2 bowl teams in out of conference and that would have looked pretty good.

We can't. We have to play nau

Grambling State

ASUHATER! wrote:

Gilbertcat wrote:Get rid of the FCS teams. Playing 3 FBS teams that have a chance at bowl games looks great. Had UTSA not revealed their entire playbook during one game, we could have played 2 bowl teams in out of conference and that would have looked pretty good.

We can't. We have to play nau

I have heard that but I am not sure its true. Here is ASSu's FCS teams:

2012-NAU
2013-SAC St
2014-Weber St
2015-Cal Poly
2016-NAU

While Arizona is alternating playing NAU ever 2 years, they are not. So it might be a recommendation and not a policy.

We took one of ASSu's dates with NAU to help them out of a schedule conflict.

Interesting, what year was that? Its been every other year against NAU for a while now so it must mean I am forgetting a back to back year.

Gilbertcat wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote:

Gilbertcat wrote:Get rid of the FCS teams. Playing 3 FBS teams that have a chance at bowl games looks great. Had UTSA not revealed their entire playbook during one game, we could have played 2 bowl teams in out of conference and that would have looked pretty good.

We can't. We have to play nau

I have heard that but I am not sure its true. Here is ASSu's FCS teams:

2012-NAU
2013-SAC St
2014-Weber St
2015-Cal Poly
2016-NAU

While Arizona is alternating playing NAU ever 2 years, they are not. So it might be a recommendation and not a policy.

No it is a requirement by the board of regents and has been for over a decade now. In every 3 year period at least two games by Arizona and/or Asu have to be played against nau.

Its a mild point on my part because everyone seems to agree there is a requirement but I guess I dont understand why its not in writing anywhere and why ASSu couldn't fit it in for 4 years. I dont mind the tuneup game.

Gilbertcat wrote:Interesting, what year was that? Its been every other year against NAU for a while now so it must mean I am forgetting a back to back year.

Looking back at the schedules we have alternated with ASSu in playing NAU ever since 2002. It looks like we switched 2003 and 2004 with ASSu. This is what I must have been thinking of. We played NAU in 02, 04, 05, 07, 09, 11, and 13. ASSu played them 03, 06, 08, 10, and 12. We are scheduled to play them in 15 and ASSu is scheduled to play them in 16.

I'm fine with playing NAU every other year or so. But that's where we should draw the line. I don't see the benefit of playing FCS schools from Georgia or some random state.

I thought we had to play NAU if we wanted to play an FCS school, which I think is a good idea for the state university system.

But if we want to start playing all FBS schools, aren't we free to do that?

azgreg wrote:

Gilbertcat wrote:Interesting, what year was that? Its been every other year against NAU for a while now so it must mean I am forgetting a back to back year.

Looking back at the schedules we have alternated with ASSu in playing NAU ever since 2002. It looks like we switched 2003 and 2004 with ASSu. This is what I must have been thinking of. We played NAU in 02, 04, 05, 07, 09, 11, and 13. ASSu played them 03, 06, 08, 10, and 12. We are scheduled to play them in 15 and ASSu is scheduled to play them in 16.

It still proves your point that there was a b-t-b. I just couldnt remember that far back. Much of that era I tend to forget. Perhaps NAU got a bigger payout and passed on playing in state recently. FCS teams are fine when your conference as a whole is strong. I am just curious how the 13 game season will work out unless they decide to just play 12 games that year (Wash played 13 but OSU only played 12). I think Washington had 2 FCS teams this year since they went to Hawaii. I dont know how excited our fan base would be in having to pay for to FCS home games in one year. I wouldnt be.

NCAA rules allow you to schedule an extra game if you travel to Hawaii. I agree with a lot here that our OOC is to weak, but I don't think we need to strengthen it that much. I like the idea of a FCS team (NAU whenever possible), non-P5 team, and P5 team.

Schedule is prefect for breaking in our new linemen.

we're still not good enough to worry about SOS

UAEebs86 wrote:I thought we had to play NAU if we wanted to play an FCS school, which I think is a good idea for the state university system.

But if we want to start playing all FBS schools, aren't we free to do that?

No we aren't. Have to either have the regents change the policy or force asu to play nau almost every year while we never play them

ASUHATER! wrote:

UAEebs86 wrote:I thought we had to play NAU if we wanted to play an FCS school, which I think is a good idea for the state university system.

But if we want to start playing all FBS schools, aren't we free to do that?

No we aren't. Have to either have the regents change the policy or force asu to play nau almost every year while we never play them

What do you mean?

we can't just say sorry we're not playing nau anymore. Either us or asu has to play them twice every three years. If we say sorry we won't do it any more, then that means asu has to play them 2/3 years and they won't agree to that.

We switched with them 1 year to help them with a scheduling conflict. After next season we both would have played them 6 times since 2002. I don't see a problem.

ASUHATER! wrote:

Gilbertcat wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote:

Gilbertcat wrote:Get rid of the FCS teams. Playing 3 FBS teams that have a chance at bowl games looks great. Had UTSA not revealed their entire playbook during one game, we could have played 2 bowl teams in out of conference and that would have looked pretty good.

We can't. We have to play nau

I have heard that but I am not sure its true. Here is ASSu's FCS teams:

2012-NAU
2013-SAC St
2014-Weber St
2015-Cal Poly
2016-NAU

While Arizona is alternating playing NAU ever 2 years, they are not. So it might be a recommendation and not a policy.

No it is a requirement by the board of regents and has been for over a decade now. In every 3 year period at least two games by Arizona and/or Asu have to be played against nau.

It's not a requirement. What the Regents said, if either School was going to schedule an FCS school that they consider scheduling NAU so the money stays in state. For the most part the 2 schools have done just that. It makes sense and I'm sure they will continue to do so but neither school is locked into it by law or anything of the sort.

The problem would arise is if we scheduled an FCS school when we had the chance to schedule NAU. Where neither school would get in trouble is if it scheduled just FBS schools for it's OOC. The Regents wouldn't have a problem with that as it's not like they scheduled another FCS school and screwed NAU. Big difference.

It is a requirement.

Playing a weak OOC schedule is imperative until the committee isn't such slaves to W-L record.

They still put way too much emphasis on W-L record and playing a tough out of conference game is much more damaging to lose than to get any sort of credit if you win.

This Arizona team went to Oregon and won and that win while it carried some weight didn't get as much credit as it truly deserved. Tough wins just don't get credited as much as any loss in my opinion.

Take Michigan State for example, they probably would have been in the Top 4 (for unknown reasons) if they hadn't chose to go to the hardest place to win in college football. If they had scheduled Eastern Michigan at home instead of at Oregon, they are an 11-1 Big 10 team and might have gotten in if Florida State had stumbled against Georgia Tech.

Their reward for taking on a very tough OOC game was to be out of the conversation entirely.

Meanwhile, Baylor had the worst OOC schedule I've ever seen and Ohio State had a terrible one as well on top of the down Big 10 and both were heavy into the conversation and Ohio State ultimately got in. If Ohio State took on a tough out of conference game and got a 2nd loss they would have been surefire out of the conversation solely due to W-L record.

As much as I would love to see a big OOC game at Arizona Stadium, it does not improve Arizona's chances in the CFP format.

Arizona has plenty of chances to get quality wins in Pac-12 play and that is why I think you see the OOC schedules as they are.

ASUHATER! wrote:It is a requirement.

I've been all over the board of regents site and have found mentions of the schedule in reports but no where can I find where it's required. It wouldn't surprise me if it is though. If you are having trouble falling asleep I recommend reading the ABOR by-laws.

azcat34 wrote:Playing a weak OOC schedule is imperative until the committee isn't such slaves to W-L record.

......

Completely agree with everything state in 34's post.

Why make things harder on ourselves?

I don't mind playing OkSt, Iowa, Wisconsin as we have in the past. It's good fanfare, gets us into prime TV slots, and cycles their fanbases through Tucson. It be nice to put those factors together and schedule one-&-one's with a few of other P5 conferences, but anything beyond that is stupid. Schools like Illinois, Minnesota, Kentucky, Texas Tech, etc.

Here is an oldie but goodie:

Arizona plays BYU in 2016 (Glendale, Ariz.), 2018 (Tucson) and 2020 (Provo, Utah). With Byrne’s philosophy about BYU being major-conference quality that may mean the Wildcats will not fill remaining holes in the 2016 and 2020 schedules with a team from the Power 5. Arizona has one non-conference game to schedule in both years.

NAU, a common opponent for Arizona, is currently not scheduled through 2020. Byrne said yesterday that Arizona wants to continue its series with the Lumberjacks because “it’s good for the state”. That means NAU will probably occupy at least one of the remaining seven spots that are open from 2015-2020.

http://allsportstucson.com/2014/07/18/a ... onference/

So a series in 17 and 19 with a power 5 is more likely and based on Byrne's comment, its only good to schedule NAU and not required. But who knows.

if we go 11-2 win the pac 12 championship with non conf wins over a 1-AA school, a WAC school and MWC school we will likely be in the playoff.

if we went 10-3 with the same 7-2 record in conference but went 2-1 out of conference and that loss was against a big 10 or big 12 school we probably wouldn't be in the playoff or would be a lower seed.

CatsbyAZ wrote:

azcat34 wrote:Playing a weak OOC schedule is imperative until the committee isn't such slaves to W-L record.

......

Completely agree with everything state in 34's post.

Why make things harder on ourselves?

I don't mind playing OkSt, Iowa, Wisconsin as we have in the past. It's good fanfare, gets us into prime TV slots, and cycles their fanbases through Tucson. It be nice to put those factors together and schedule one-&-one's with a few of other P5 conferences, but anything beyond that is stupid. Schools like Illinois, Minnesota, Kentucky, Texas Tech, etc.

Slaves to the W-L record? Aren't there two teams with losses, (and at one point 3 teams) who are ranked above an undefeated FSU? Wasn't the Big 12 commissioner just on tv yesterday publicly acknowledging that the weakness of the OOC schedule clearly played a key role in Baylor missing out on the playoff?

At the end of the day, the most important thing is you win your conference. But if the committee is torn between two conference champions for one playoff spot, I guarantee you are going to want to have played the stronger OOC schedule.

Scummy Dick Douglas wrote:

CatsbyAZ wrote:

azcat34 wrote:Playing a weak OOC schedule is imperative until the committee isn't such slaves to W-L record.

......

Completely agree with everything state in 34's post.

Why make things harder on ourselves?

I don't mind playing OkSt, Iowa, Wisconsin as we have in the past. It's good fanfare, gets us into prime TV slots, and cycles their fanbases through Tucson. It be nice to put those factors together and schedule one-&-one's with a few of other P5 conferences, but anything beyond that is stupid. Schools like Illinois, Minnesota, Kentucky, Texas Tech, etc.

Slaves to the W-L record? Aren't there two teams with losses, (and at one point 3 teams) who are ranked above an undefeated FSU? Wasn't the Big 12 commissioner just on tv yesterday publicly acknowledging that the weakness of the OOC schedule clearly played a key role in Baylor missing out on the playoff?

At the end of the day, the most important thing is you win your conference. But if the committee is torn between two conference champions for one playoff spot, I guarantee you are going to want to have played the stronger OOC schedule.

So this Ohio State out of conference schedule performance got them in the four-team playoff?

Navy
Virginia Tech -- Home Loss By 2 TD's
Kent State
Cincinnati

This on top of a very weak Big 10.

11-1 got Ohio State in and a powerful brand name as well.

If they replaced Kent State with LSU in Death Valley and lost, an 10-2 Ohio State team is not considered in the slightest.

W-L is all that matters and Arizona will always have plenty of chances to pick up quality wins in the conference season. 6 ranked teams currently in Pac-12.

You think that Arizona non-conference schedule is less than good? Take a look at Baylor's over the next five years. Definitely not going to help them get into the playoff w/o going undefeated:

2015: at SMU, Lamar, Rice
2016: Northwestern State, SMU, at Rice
2017: Liberty, UT-San Antonio, at Duke
2018: at UT-San Antonio, Duke, TBA
2019: University of the Incarnate Word (yes, that’s an actual school and not something Gordon Gee said to be funny), UT-San Antonio, Rice

I think most believe that the system will move to 8 teams and include the big 5 conference champions. With that in mind, schedule easy.

I also agree that the BOR has told the schools to include NAU but no written mandate was drafted

azgreg wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote:It is a requirement.

I've been all over the board of regents site and have found mentions of the schedule in reports but no where can I find where it's required. It wouldn't surprise me if it is though. If you are having trouble falling asleep I recommend reading the ABOR by-laws.

That's because it's not a requirement. As I mentioned, the BOR asked that if either school is going to schedule an FCS school that they schedule NAU. UA and Assu agreed to alternate each year and that's where we are today. It's never been a requirement and has always been a suggestion that made sense. Why pay an out of state school to play here when NAU is happy to fill the schedule.

Scummy Dick Douglas wrote: At the end of the day, the most important thing is you win your conference. But if the committee is torn between two conference champions for one playoff spot, I guarantee you are going to want to have played the stronger OOC schedule.

To take a step back and enjoy the bigger picture - isn't that a good "problem" to have?

We didn't even win the conference this year and I'll take this year over the last 15.