Ohio State cancels football series with Washington
- Thread starter doctornick
- Start date
HORRIBLE. And just plain embarrassing. Shades of Alabama and Florida. Surely the Lions can do better than THAT. They should never, ever, schedule the likes of Villanova, Kent State, Delaware, Temple, or Bowling Green. Talk about the Bowling Green Massacre ...
🙄
Every P5 school plays crap teams and it would be ridiculous not to when other schools have those “breaks” in the schedule. Hell, most SEC schools play 3 cupcakes every year due to only having an 8 game conference schedule. And honestly those games are usually key for getting younger players some experience.
No the problem is that we really need to be playing one quality P5 school non conference. WVU and Syracuse are all right, not ideal but at least we have history with them. But Temple is horrible and needs to be dropped and replaced. And in general we should be looking for more impressive OOC teams for that slot IMHO, more like Auburn or stronger. With the Texas/Oklahoma move, those schools and some SEC teams that they were planned to play (eg Georgia, Florida) will have some openings to fill so I’d love to see us jump now to upgrade our non conference.
I'd get rid of Nevada and San Jose St as we'll already be getting some west coast attention. I like the Philadelphia teams on the schedule and the media there will eat it up. Delaware used to get more coverage than any of the other area teams but not sure if that's still the case.
Agree 100%. And with tv market money guiding college football I wonder if UNLV is in play as a P5 conference addition for that growing Vegas market filled with transplants from all over the nation that now has a premium stadium as well.
TV markets aren't really driving conference expansion any more. That was the case when conference TV networks and the corresponding rights fees from cable/satellite ruled the air. There was value in being located in a state/market with high population even if those folks didn't follow the team specifically. We are now rapidly moving away from how that system was valuable and now fanbases/brands/TV ratings matter more than market size alone - and the reality is that Pac-12 teams by and large do not garner that much viewership compared to other P5 conferences. Part of that is the time zone issue but a lot of simply because Pac-12 teams often don't have the same kind of rabid fanbases that you find in other colleges (particularly in the South and Midwest).
Right now the remaining Pac-12 are having a horrible time getting a new TV deal completed and are likely going to settle on a streaming heavy one because no one really values those rights all that might. USC was far and away the most valuable brand in the Pac-12 and losing them and another above average school in UCLA crippled their marketability. The remaining Pac-12 school, even the more appealing ones like Oregon and Washington, aren't really all that valued by TV execs.
Realistically, no remaining Pac-12 teams increase the value of the Big Ten. The Big Ten makes so much money that any addition has to substantially increase the overall revenue of the conference to make it worthwhile. Like if they expanded by 2 more schools, those schools would need to increase the Big Ten's TV deal by something like $130M a year and, quite frankly, ain't no Pac-12 schools doing that. The current Pac-12 deal - with USC/UCLA in it - only pays out $250M a year. If the Big Ten was going to add any Pac-12 schools in the near future, they would have done so along with USC/UCLA last year and rolled it into the new TV deal they just signed in the fall. The fact that Washington, Oregon, Stanford, etc did not get added last summer speaks volumes about how much those schools are valued by the Big Ten, i.e. not really all that much.
Quite frankly, it seems extremely unlikely that the Big Ten even considers any expansion until/unless Notre Dame wants to join the conference or until the ACC's GOR is going to expire and they could consider adding a school like FSU. Any currently available school is just dilutive and the Big Ten schools aren't looking to make less money each.
Right now the remaining Pac-12 are having a horrible time getting a new TV deal completed and are likely going to settle on a streaming heavy one because no one really values those rights all that might. USC was far and away the most valuable brand in the Pac-12 and losing them and another above average school in UCLA crippled their marketability. The remaining Pac-12 school, even the more appealing ones like Oregon and Washington, aren't really all that valued by TV execs.
Realistically, no remaining Pac-12 teams increase the value of the Big Ten. The Big Ten makes so much money that any addition has to substantially increase the overall revenue of the conference to make it worthwhile. Like if they expanded by 2 more schools, those schools would need to increase the Big Ten's TV deal by something like $130M a year and, quite frankly, ain't no Pac-12 schools doing that. The current Pac-12 deal - with USC/UCLA in it - only pays out $250M a year. If the Big Ten was going to add any Pac-12 schools in the near future, they would have done so along with USC/UCLA last year and rolled it into the new TV deal they just signed in the fall. The fact that Washington, Oregon, Stanford, etc did not get added last summer speaks volumes about how much those schools are valued by the Big Ten, i.e. not really all that much.
Quite frankly, it seems extremely unlikely that the Big Ten even considers any expansion until/unless Notre Dame wants to join the conference or until the ACC's GOR is going to expire and they could consider adding a school like FSU. Any currently available school is just dilutive and the Big Ten schools aren't looking to make less money each.
Here is the long explanation as to why Ohio State canceled the game.
www.cleveland.com
Why Ohio State football canceled its home-and-home series with Washington in 2024-25
Ohio State football will no longer play a home-and-home series with Washington in 2024-25.
Simple question…would you rather be 12-0 or 11-1 with an easy OOC schedule or 10-2 or 9-3 with a hard OOC schedule? Give me 12-0 or 11-1 any day.
I enjoyed your analysis very much. If fanbases/ratings drive the new valuation vs market size, it appears to me that Oregon would be a net positive addition. Ratings and fanbase size are top 10-15, not much different than USC and far better than UCLA.
That's easy. 9-3 with a schedule that involves games where the opponent at least presents SOME competition. Laying a 40 point beatdown on a team that is hopelessly overmatched is no achievement. Might as well start scheduling directional schools, trade schools, and JC's at that point.
The B10 and SEC should do a challenge every year like in hoops. Guarantees we have one good OOC game each year. Our pairing could be how we finished the prior year and rotate vs the SEC east and west each year. For example, for '23 we would match up with #3 in the East or West which would be South Carolina maybe in the East and maybe Miss St in west. Interestingly two teams we have never played or very seldom played.
So you would rather not make the playoffs than make the playoffs….interesting.
You wouldn’t swap Pitt for a MAC or Rutgersesque p5 school and a playoff appearance in 2016? BS. I’m sure Washington fans wouldn’t drop Rutgers off that2016 schedule in favor of someone w a pulse in retrospect.
Let’s see how many seasons we don’t have at least 2 of osu/usc/um moving forward.
If we end up with tOSU as a protected game and average playing a team 2 out of 4 years then we will likely be playing two of those teams every year.
Exactly. Any season that has a combination of those 3 its counterproductive to schedule strong ooc.
I don't want to just get to the playoff. I want us to have a team that can win it when they get there. If we have to schedule cupcakes OOC to get there, we probably aren't beating Alabama or Georgia. The problem with teams not playing anybody but cupcakes OOC is that we won't really know how good a team is when they go 11-1 or 12-0 and get to the playoff. Maybe the conference was down and those wins weren't so impressive. In a 12-team format, I'd rather be an improved 10-2 with an early competitive loss to a team I'll see again later than go 11-1 or 12-0 and find out in our first game that we were probably vastly over-rated. Going into a playoff, would you rather be like 1981 Pitt (11-1) or 1981 Penn State (10-2)? I'd have picked 1981 Penn State to beat anybody by the end of the year.
We would most probably made the playoffs this year with two losses to two top five teams. If we had played Alabama or Georgia and had three losses we would have had no shot at the playoffs.
You have to get there first and when you play in the Big Ten (especially in the East division) you will have plenty of tests. If we played in the ACC, I would agree with you.
In the big ten there will only be 2 tests- Ohio St and Michigan, (assuming Harbaugh can keep them at current level). Not exactly a killer schedule of big games compared to other team’s schedules (especially those in the SEC).
No one is saying PSU’s 3 game OOC schedule needs to be Bama, Georgia, and LSU each year but there should be 1 good matchup (not 3 directional schools or a combo of Temple/ Delaware/ Villanova/ Kent St).
MSU is often good, our cross over games are usually Iowa (who is often good), could be Wisconsin (who’s often good), Illinois is getting better…and so on. Our schedule is often tougher than SEC teams especially those in the SEC East.
Let me know when the Big Ten goes back to 8 games, ensures we only play Michigan or osu twice a decade and let’s us schedule an fcs opponent in november and I’ll agree we need a quality ooc opponent every year. Because that’s how the sec is setup for UGA and Bama.
Respectfully, I disagree. The minute you need to use Illinois to try to prop up Penn State’s schedule you’ve jumped the shark.
.
Georgia gets off lightly being in the SEC east and playing Bama twice a decade because of their crossover rules. It’s like us and Nebraska.
That said, there’s more to the SEC than Georgia. Next year Alabama plays Texas, Texas A&M, Tennessee, LSU, and Auburn.
You mean the team that was ranked during the year last year? They’re a better team with their current coach, but even without them, other teams in the Big Ten have good years. Many of the Big teams are better than their reputation in various years and many SEC teams are worse than their reputations in various years.Respectfully, I disagree. The minute you need to use Illinois to try to prop up Penn State’s schedule you’ve jumped the shark.
We played Auburn and got no credit for doing so because they sucked…A&M was bad, Texas was not great, and LSU was inconsistent….so as usual, the SEC’s reputation exceeds their ability.
Don’t base everything on 1 year. What about Illinois 2 years ago or the year before that? I’m talking overall here. Illinois records the past 20 years-
Illinois
2022- 8-5
2021- 5-7
2020- 2-6
2019- 6-7
2018- 4-8
2017- 2-10
2016- 3-9
2015- 5-7
2014- 6-7
2013- 4-8
2012- 2-10
2011- 7-6
2010- 7-6
2009- 3-9
2008- 5-7
2007- 9-4
2006- 2-10
2005- 2-9
2004- 3-8
2003- 1-11
Both conferences have their bottom feeders but the SEC clearly has better programs top to bottom and has been a better overall conference over the years.
Last edited:
Everyone here gave Penn State great credit for scheduling and playing Auburn. Yeah, Auburn had some down years recently. It happens, including to PSU.
LSU had a 10 win season (10-4). The Big Ten had 3 teams ranked in the final AP and coaches polls. The SEC had 6, (7 if you want to include Texas).
Iowa was bad, pathetic actually on offense. Michigan State was bad. Nebraska and Wisconsin sucked. It goes both ways.
I agree some SEC teams are overrated by the media to start the season but, overall, the SEC has been a better and deeper football conference over the years.
Last edited:
You listed two teams that missed bowl games this past season and one that finished 8-5 in your argument about how deep the sec is?
We play two teams from last years cfp (Michigan and osu), Iowa (also finished 8-5), Illinois (also finished 8-5) and Maryland (also finished 8-5).
add an extra loss to half the sec teams or subtract a loss from half the big ten teams and the rankings look different if both conferences played the same number of conference games.
Maryland went 8-5 with three losses to top ten teams.
The SEC gets the benefit of the doubt in the rankings which is why they always have more ranked teams. Then if a non ranked SEC team beats a ranked SEC team, they get ranked, but the losing team doesn’t drop out of the rankings. In no other conference would a team like Kentucky last year start the season ranked as high as they were. College football is 90% perception and the SEC benefits from a self fulfilling prophecy of strength.
A big reason for that perception is the SEC record in bowl games over many decades. But they have huge advantages in bowl games that is never discuss or factored in. The other conferences should do a better job of promoting their member teams.
The last two years they’ve had a .500 bowl record. The perception comes from having the best one or two teams every year….that doesn’t show depth, that shows a conference being top heavy. It’s a strong conference, no doubt, but so is the Big Ten. And the Big Ten East is every bit as good as the SEC West and better than the SEC East.
Similar threads
