A Catch-22 in the Ivy League's scheduling

[bonarae]

http://biggreenalertblog.blogspot.com/ - see September 1 post

Hmmmm.... yet another reason why the Ivies should have 11 games.

Just imagine... the particular opponent an Ivy League team plays has their third or fourth game. Note that in the past, the League used to let the teams play each other in the first game of the season. Until the early 1970's the Ivies prevailed, however, ever since, the opponents in the playoff conferences (A-10/CAA and Patriot) have won most of the time (exceptions: Holy Cross).

What's your take? I only discovered this now.

[DSUrocks07]

Ivy League Catch-22 (http://biggreenalertblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/ivy-league-catch-22.html) (A more direct link)


Anonymous said...

This may be oversimplifying things, but as long as the Ivies continue to skip the I-AA playoffs, why worry if the non-conference foes have an advantage in Week 1? Seems to me that losing that game is preferable to hinging the entire year on a season opener against a league opponent when you've had no time to work out the kinks.


I agree with this person. Since the Ivy League does not participate in the playoffs. They shouldn't worry about embarrassing themselves in a non-conference opener. Most schools open up against OOCs to determine the state of their program and measure how good they can be this year...it can also help prepare for league competition, where your season is truly defined.

[letsgopards04]

I understand your arguement of preparation if the OOC opponent is a tough opponent but I question what is learned at LSU or Ohio State after they pummel a FCS team. Maybe that 'test' just reaffirmed the obvious, 'we are real good'. They probably would have learned more with an intrasquad scrimmage.


Ivy League Catch-22 (http://biggreenalertblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/ivy-league-catch-22.html) (A more direct link)



I agree with this person. Since the Ivy League does not participate in the playoffs. They shouldn't worry about embarrassing themselves in a non-conference opener. Most schools open up against OOCs to determine the state of their program and measure how good they can be this year...it can also help prepare for league competition, where your season is truly defined.

[DSUrocks07]

I understand your arguement of preparation if the OOC opponent is a tough opponent but I question what is learned at LSU or Ohio State after they pummel a FCS team. Maybe that 'test' just reaffirmed the obvious, 'we are real good'. They probably would have learned more with an intrasquad scrimmage.

Some things you learn from a real game compared to a scrimmage:
1) Legit competition, the other team is actually trying to beat you.
2) Testing Coaching staff Coaches can open up their playbook and see what works a what doesn't.
3) Game speed exposure
4) Stepping up to play upper-tier schools where the players are quicker
5) Playing in front of a stadium full of fans (in most cases)

...and I'm sure that there are plenty others. I know Ivy League schools don't need the payday, but those games really do make your program better.

[813Jag]

Some things you learn from a real game compared to a scrimmage:
1) Legit competition, the other team is actually trying to beat you.
2) Testing Coaching staff Coaches can open up their playbook and see what works a what doesn't.
3) Game speed exposure
4) Stepping up to play upper-tier schools where the players are quicker
5) Playing in front of a stadium full of fans (in most cases)

...and I'm sure that there are plenty others. I know Ivy League schools don't need the payday, but those games really do make your program better.
You also get a chance to see how your team deals with adversity. If they can rebound from a tough game and compete. Or do they give up. Those games only improve your team if your team was already pretty good. I don't like playing a game where it's pretty certain that you will lose, but I'm also not a fan of a really easy game either. Too easy to get a false sense of security. IMHO.

[CrusaderBob]

I don't get this logic


The disadvantage of Ivy-Ivy openers was the tremendous importance placed on a first game.

Case in point: In 1984, Dartmouth lost its opener to two-time defending champion Penn, which looked like another powerhouse. With a conference loss in the books and the Penn game behind it, the Big Green's championship hopes were out of its hands if Penn ran the table. When the Quakers did that, Dartmouth had been effectively eliminated from the Ivy League race in the first week of the season.

Why does losing your first Ivy League game in Week 1 of the Season put your back against the wall any than losing it in Week 3 or 4? Either way you're 0-1 in the league and face the same prospects to win the league title.

Now maybe you feel a bit better going into the first league game if you and your first opponent have played a couple of games in terms of knowing what you have and what your opponent has, but regardless of when that game comes, if you lose it, you face the same uphill battle.