The post you were responding to was in regards to a team's OOC Schedule. So in answer to your question, Michigan won it all in 2023 playing nobody in their OOC schedule (as defined by the OP and the OP's supporters in this thread). Michigan played ECU, UNLV and BGSU for their OOC Schedule in 2023.
Do you agree or disagree with Penn State's scheduling philosophy?
- Thread starter psujejr
- Start date
The post you were responding to was in regards to a team's OOC Schedule. So in answer to your question, Michigan won it all in 2023 playing nobody in their OOC schedule (as defined by the OP and the OP's supporters in this thread). Michigan played ECU, UNLV and BGSU for their OOC Schedule in 2023.
Aren't there enough teams with comparable talent in our conference? I don't see why we need to schedule more of them. OSU had an easy non-conference schedule last year as did Michigan the year before, certainly none of the teams they played had comparable talent, but yet somehow both of those teams had the mental toughness to win the National Championship.
I don't think Kraft would be the one to ask because the series makes sense from Temple's prospective. I think the curiosity is why Oklahoma agreed to those games in 2016. Although I suppose the American was considered a better conference at that point than they are today (since losing teams to the Big 12 and ACC)
Temple, Oklahoma agree to three-game series
Oklahoma and Temple have agreed to a three-game football series starting in 2024.
www.espn.com
That's disingenuous. The PSU series with VA Tech was disrupted due to COVID and how messed up the 2020 season was. The game in 2020 in Blacksburg was cancelled due to the pandemic so I would think/expect that the return trip to Happy Valley in 2025 was automatically cancelled as well. I don't think that's really the same as VA Tech "backing out" (unlike, say, UVA cancelling the 2013 game at PSU
) as much as the series just being mutually changed.It would have been nice if the 2020 game at VA Tech had been rescheduled for a later date (which PSU did with other games; e.g. Nevada was originally scheduled for 2020 then moved to this season). That would have enabled PSU to play them this season at home then maybe gone to VA Tech in (say) 2030 when we could have spared an away game. Or even better in 2026 and just cancelled the idiotic away game at Temple.
One key thing is that teams have different numbers of conference games. Personally, I focus less on "who is a team playing non-conference" and more on "how many Power 4 teams do they play". If an SEC or ACC team is playing one Power 4 team non-conference then they are only playing 9 Power 4 teams total - the same number as PSU. If the CFP committee is going to penalize teams for not having "tougher" schedules, it needs to compare the number of Power 4 games, not just "who did the team schedule non-conference" since teams don't have the same starting point for conference schedules.
IOW, it would be wrong to leave out PSU from the CFP because "they didn't schedule a Power team non-conference" if they are letting in SEC or ACC teams that only have 9 Power 4 games total.
(It's worth noting that the SEC is finally moving to 9 conference games next season)
On a fundamental basis, I disagree with the philosophy because I'm just a fan, and I want to be entertained as much as possible every time I watch a game. So I want fun competitive matchups each week. I would rather watch us lose to Alabama than whoop up on Villanova.
Alternatively, I'd also like to see only conference winners (or as close to that as possible) advance to the playoffs, and to have everyone in a conference play each other during the season. So, again, I'm fundamentally opposed to the current philosophy.
However, I'm also aware those two things aren't happening, so in the context of the current scheduling environment, I don't care that much. Do I want to see a "better" game or two earlier in the season, with the possibility that those games could negatively impact our ability to play in more "meaningful" games (by losing said earlier games)? Dunno. 6 of 1, half a dozen of another sort of situation ... my indifference likely being partially borne from my disdain for the current scheduling environment around all of college football and its deviation from my preferred alternatives.
Alternatively, I'd also like to see only conference winners (or as close to that as possible) advance to the playoffs, and to have everyone in a conference play each other during the season. So, again, I'm fundamentally opposed to the current philosophy.
However, I'm also aware those two things aren't happening, so in the context of the current scheduling environment, I don't care that much. Do I want to see a "better" game or two earlier in the season, with the possibility that those games could negatively impact our ability to play in more "meaningful" games (by losing said earlier games)? Dunno. 6 of 1, half a dozen of another sort of situation ... my indifference likely being partially borne from my disdain for the current scheduling environment around all of college football and its deviation from my preferred alternatives.
As a follow up to this point, if anyone wants to complain about PSU's schedule, they would also need to complain about all of the following Power 4 teams who have 9 (or fewer) Power 5 teams on their schedule:
Arkansas
Auburn
Georgia
Kentucky
LSU
Mississippi St
Missouri
Oklahoma
Ole Miss** (only 8 Power 5 teams!)
Tennessee
Texas
Texas A&M
Vanderbilt
California*
Duke
Louisville
UNC
UVA*
Wake Forest** (only 8 Power 5 teams!)
Indiana
Maryland
Northwestern
Rutgers
Washington*
Houston*
Texas Tech*
That's a huge chunk of the Power 5 teams playing the exact same number of Power 5 opponents - or fewer! - than PSU this season.
Key:
* = these teams are playing Oregon St or Washington St as a non-conference opponent, so if you consider them Power 5 quality than they would get those teams to 10 Power 5 opponents in 2025
** = these teams are playing Oregon St or Washington St as a non-conference opponent, so if you consider them Power 5 quality than they would get those teams to 9 Power 5 opponents in 2025 (they still play 3 other teams that are clearly not Power 5)
Last edited:
What did Kraft have over Barbour? Are you really asking that question?
I'm inclined to believe that Kraft initiated the conversation with OU so he'd be intimately familiar with the offer he made them that caused them to biteI don't think Kraft would be the one to ask because the series makes sense from Temple's prospective. I think the curiosity is why Oklahoma agreed to those games in 2016. Although I suppose the American was considered a better conference at that point than they are today (since losing teams to the Big 12 and ACC)
Temple, Oklahoma agree to three-game series
Oklahoma and Temple have agreed to a three-game football series starting in 2024.
When the deal was made, OU had a similar arrangement with WVU. Not hard to argue that Temple at the time was similar caliber opponent.
Huh? Weren't both Oklahoma and WVU in the B12 at the time? Conference Schedules are always home/away and are typically made by the Conference Front Office, not the individual ADs as with OOC Opponents.
It sucks, but it's also understandable because it is the status quo. We have currently established a culture in college football where only winning matters and it doesn't matter who you're winning against. And since that's the established paradigm, everyone can and SHOULD schedule the softest possible opponents.
The drawback: the fans hate it.
But why should this matter? They're still making money on these games, so they don't care how much we squawk.
This is where the NCAA has to step in and actually GOVERN. The rule should be that every P4 team has to schedule at least one OOC game against a P4 opponent.
We can still play a relatively soft opponent, but I suspect fans would be more interested in seeing Penn State play VaTech, or WVU, or Boston College, or (dare I say it?), Pitt?!... than the frikin' Thundering Herd. /eyeroll
Yeah, it's not us-- this is the culture that has been fostered across the entire College Football landscape. Everyone is doing it, and it's bad for the fans, and no one that has any stroke gives a crap.
Contrary to your implications, this is nothing new - Major College Football has seen this kind of scheduling for a long, long time (i.e., the scheduling of home-only opponents). Contrary to what most have posted - these schedules are driven by the P4 teams desire to schedule the maximum number of Home Games every year for the revenue. Everybody does it.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that it's new-- only that it's been exacerbated over the years.
I specifically pointed out that everyone is doing it, and should, too, because there's clearly no downside other than fan ire/indifference.
Again-- NCAA needs to step in. But given the fact that they all got rich for decades off the backs of unpaid labor... I don't expect them to ever do anything good.
They are making way less money than if they scheduled a quality opponent. But yes, they are still making money in a stadium that is substantially short of a sellout.
Last edited:
Not sure I agree with the "they got rich" - Athletic Departments (and Universities) are not "rich". The Athletic Departments were locked in a nuclear arms race building massive facilities to support their massive Athletic Departments and budgets (travel budgets alone for all of the sports programs has become quite enormous). The football revenues have traditionally funded all the non-revenue sports as well as sports that operate at deep deficits to their tiny revenues. Universities have traditionally engaged in this behavior because it is key to their enrollment and popularity among applicants - fall Saturdays (tailgates.... partying in the lots after games.... etc.....) are integral to the Universities culture and Social Life.... and their national popularity. Universities have become bloated and over-staffed, but the biggest irony is that most of the Athletic Departments operate in the red especially after the advent of NIL where a large chunk of the football revenues is used to fund not only football NIL athletes, but NIL athletes across all sports. The current situation is unsustainable for 90% of the FBS Programs.
The only people who have gotten wealthy are the most successful Head Coaches, Athletic Directors and the Presidents of the top FBS Programs.
1) Until someone stops paying for it, not likely to change.
2) PSU is not "normal" (to its peers) wrt OOC scheduling.
Among those who pay for this stuff, two primary entities - fans and TV networks.
Fans, so far, have been very willing to pay big $ for season tickets - even if that slate includes several dog games. Even if it includes several dog games, like last week, where 25,000 folks pay for tickets but don't even bother to show up. That costs PSU some money - concessions and what not - but not enough for them to worry about.
The more likely catalyst to change some of this is the TV folks. They have been pushing for more good-vs-good conference games. And I can't imagine those pressures won't grow a bit - and include OOC schedules.
PSU's OOC scheduling is DEFINITELY not the norm.
Just over the last 10 years PSU's Big Ten peers (OSU and Michigan) have scheduled OOC games with Texas - twice, Notre Dame - 4 times, Florida, Oklahoma - 3 times, Oregon (before they moved to Big Ten).
PSU over that same time frame? Well, they did schedule the 2 game set with Auburn (not a blue blood, but shoulda' coulda' been a solid match up. Not PSU's fault they stunk it up for those two years) But that's it. That's embarrassing for a supposed blue blood program - and not anywhere near comparable to OSU or Michigan.
And it only gets worse moving forward - where OSU has series set with Texas, Alabama, and Georgia : Michigan has series scheduled with Texas, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma.
Penn State? Nothing but absolute trash games. Love it or hate it, that's the way HCJF wants it. It is what it is. But it is NOT "normal"
If the TV revenue pot were to be allocated out to teams based on their TV ratings, or some such thing, that would stop. Could that happen?
Your math is not correct. If they do home/away series, teams have traditionally agreed to split the gate of each game (i.e., roughly equivalent to one home gate). When a team schedules 2 home-only opponents over a two year period, they keep all the revenues if two games over those 2 years. PSU has one of the largest gate revenues in CFB and they also have the massive revenues created by parking and concessions (home-away series only split gate revenues). PSU makes tons more $$$ from 2 home-only games than a home-away series - it's not even close. Then you have the massive revenues generated in the town from two extra home games per year (PSU would only have 6 home games a year if they played home-away in all their OOC games).
Really? LMAO at your selective memory - in 2023 PSU played WVU in a home-away series (played @WVU in 2024) and scUM played 3 home-only opponents in their 2023 OOC schedule (ECU, UNLV and BGSU). scUM also played a home-only OOC schedule in 2022 (CSU, HAW and UConn)..... duhO$U played a home-only OOC Schedule last year (Akron, WMU and Marshall), in 2023, 2021, 2019 and 2018 (and would have played a home-only OOC Schedule in 2020 had the games not been eliminated by COVID). Simply absurd and beyond ridiculous to claim that PSU is unique in regards to OOC scheduling.
I didn't read all the posts on the thread, but I heard one of the post game people (Tengwall?) say after the Nevada game that it was supposed to be the VaTech game at home - the back half of the home and home that was cancelled due to Covid. So, it would have been slightly better this year.
That is solid analysis and food for thought. Thanks.
While true, we had over 4 years to find another opponent for a home and home (or whatever else we wanted to do if we wanted an upgraded schedule). Might have been a viable excuse if it was short notice, but it wasn't.
This is the frustrating aspect to it, but clearly getting the win over a cupcake is more important than getting a sellout.
Yeah, not the Universities and ADs--- but rather the people that work for the NCAA. And certainly coaches of major programs.
Yeah, this is a really good point-- the ticket sales and the actual "butts in seats" often do not match. The tickets are sold from the university's perspective, and the fact that no one comes... they just shrug that off. People will pay for a full slate of games with the intention of attending two.
Absolutely. And those numbers of "butts in seats" never match - but are close for big games. For Nevada I believe there were about 20,000 empty seats treated as "attendance" - 30,000 or so for FIU (larger primarily, I would think, due to the weather)
Ticket buyers try to sell those tickets they don't use - but there is no meaningful value for games like Nevada, FIU, Villanova - so they just go to trash.
There is lost ancillary revenue to the University, of course - as well as to the "town businesses".
Unfortunately, one of the lead indicators of future unsold tickets (anywhere, not just at PSU) is "tickets sold, but not used". That hasn't become a significant issue at PSU thus far - and maybe will not become an issue for some time. But its not something you want to see.
Huh? How do you figure PSU makes more from 6 home games a year than averaging 7.5 per year (sometimes it's 8, sometimes it's 7 depending whether it's a year where they're playing 4 or 5 b1g home games). Additionally, most home/away contracts only split gate-revenue, so PSU would lose all the parking, concessions and merchandise revenues for 1 game a year on average. Lastly, you're fooling yourself that there is this huge difference in revenues depending upon who the opponent is - there isn't. This claim that PSU is trading wins for revenue is so beyond false (and a made up, beyond bs, motivation) it's ridiculous. PSU does not make more from playing 6 home games a year than playing 7.5 home games per year - not even remotely close to true and we're not even talking about the benefits to the town of State College (or University Park itself) from all the increased spending.
What laughable bs - you're clearly a troll who has likely never set foot in Happy Valley for a game! The Gate Attendance for Nevada was 106,915 and 103,818 for FIU - how precisely does that equate to "no one comes"??? So many ridiculous claims made in this thread, but this might be the most ridiculous of them all.
FWIW, Those in-the-stadium numbers ARE actually available (though not to the general public) - but all one has to do is "look around"
Last edited:
FWIW, Those numbers ARE actually available (though not to the general public) - but all one has to do is "look around"
They're available to the General Public - one place you can find it is at the Game Summary Pages on ESPiN. Hit the "Recap" tab and scroll to bottom of page - actual gate attendance is listed.
You're full of crap - the Gate Attendance for Nevada was over 106K (near capacity with the current temporary bleachers during construction of multi-year renovations). Gate Attendance for FIU was almost 104K (~3K below current capacity).
Nevada was the Home Opener on a perfect Fall day - FIU was a late kick on a rainy day..... Weather always plays a role in these early-season OOC games, but your estimates are insanely overstated - insanely overstated and not even remotely close to reality.
Beast, You must be counting all those folks in the Champs Parking Lot
It is absolutely the attendance tabulated from the gate ticket-counters. Here is another source:
https://nittanysportsnow.com/2025/0...s-attendance-for-home-opener/#google_vignette
The figure announced intra-game over the PA System is the attendance from the gate ticket-counters. BTW, PSU is currently stating that capacity with the temporary bleacher seating is just under 107K, but many people believe that number could go closer to 110K for upcoming White Out Game vs The Ducks.
Bushy, I can assure you that those aren't the actual number of people through the gate. That's the tickets sold + all of the other random people in the stadium (staff, media, police, etc). It's the industry standard when it comes to attendance, but it's not close to how many fans were actually there on Saturday.