10 game schedule vs. Less than 10 game schedule

[SUADC]

With the season just a hop and a skip away. I noticed that many teams have completed their schedules by having a full 10 game season schedule, while others only have nine and some less than that. So, what are the benefits and negatives to having less than 10 games in a season? I noticed that the WIAC teams have ten games, but technically only 8 different opponents (mostly due to teams within region not wanting to play them). As a former player, I know having an extra week off helps with injuries. Also, does a 9-0 team have more credibility than a 9-1 team or even a 8-2, if the quality losses out weigh the quality wins?

[frank uible]

To your correspondent's knowledge, among all colleges only the NESCAC colleges play football schedules of fewer than 9 games. and that is because the NESCAC colleges themselves through the votes of their Presidents have agreed to limit their schedules to 8 games. The NESCAC coaches and presumably most, if not all, of their players desire longer schedules. The Colleges have chosen to avoid expressing their reasons for their joint posture on this subject - one can merely engage in SWAGs concerning such possible reasons, an unsatisfying pracice which I eschew.

[SUADC]

To your correspondent's knowledge, among all colleges only the NESCAC colleges play football schedules of fewer than 9 games. and that is because the NESCAC colleges themselves through the votes of their Presidents have agreed to limit their schedules to 8 games. The NESCAC coaches and presumably most, if not all, of their players desire longer schedules. The Colleges have chosen to avoid expressing their reasons for their joint posture on this subject - one can merely engage in SWAGs concerning such possible reasons, an unsatisfying pracice which I eschew.

Frank,

In all respect, I know the NESCAC are restricted to only 8 games and even though I am not a fan of that restriction, this is what reality has set for those programs. However, this topic was towards teams and conferences that do not fall under that restriction. Nevertheless, it would be great to see the NESCAC have an additional game or two (even if playoffs was out of the picture) but that is another topic of discussion. Other than the NESCAC, do you think having less than 10 games is beneficial for a program trying to compete for a playoff position?

[Gray Fox]

The SCIAC teams only play nine games by league agreement.  They rarely get two teams in the playoff because of NCAA budget considerations.

[frank uible]

More games mean more team game experience in preparation for playoffs but also mean more possibility of damaging injuries and at the end of an extensive season more team mental and physical fatigue which, of course, can be managed in large part by curtailing the number,  length and intensity of practices. If I were a coach with a legitimate chance or certainty of participating in playoffs, as a general proposition before the season began I would tend to lean in favor of more games.

[wally_wabash]

They rarely get two teams in the playoff because of NCAA budget considerations.

I'm all for banging on the NCAA for inequity, but this isn't a fair criticism.  Going back to 2001, the SCIAC isn't getting two teams into the field because their league runners up lose too many games.  In 2010 and 2005 the league had a 1-loss runner up that would have been in an at-large conversation.  Every other year back to 2001 the league runner up has had 2 or more losses and that usually doesn't earn an invitation to the field regardless of what league you play in or what part of the country your school is located in. 

And also last year when two SCIAC teams were selected, the NCAA didn't force them into a first round game against each other which they certainly could have done to save a few bucks. 

[smedindy]

I always felt kind of cheated as a fan when Wabash had a 9-game schedule as opposed to a 10-game schedule. I think D-3 should absolutely keep it at 10, though.

[SUADC]

I always felt kind of cheated as a fan when Wabash had a 9-game schedule as opposed to a 10-game schedule. I think D-3 should absolutely keep it at 10, though.

Never thought about it as a fan and come to think about it, I too would feel cheated as a fan. Many people enjoy watching their schools compete and many college football fans love to watch or read about other in/out of conference games. More the better.

[Teamski]

I know Wesley always likes a full plate, but as you can see once again for 2012, they end up on the short end of the stick with a 9 game schedule.  It is difficult to get opponents as a strong independent.  It always puts them in the hotseat when it comes to the playoffs unfortunately.

-Ski

[jknezek]

The kids want to play the games. You don't bust your rear through 2 a days in the late summer, practices after classes all week, and ironworks all year round not to play the games. I think if you asked, most kids would like to play more, and the teams that make the playoffs show that it isn't that much of an extra strain. I certainly understand the 10 game limit, but voluntarily not playing 10 games seems to me to be a slight against the kids that sign up and work so hard during the year.

That being said, sometimes the schedule just isn't under your control. Considering Wesley usually makes the playoffs, I'd say their seasons tend to be longer than 10 games, but I can't imagine how hard it is to set up their schedule. There just aren't enough teams that are going to see an upside playing Wesley AND are going to have the space on their schedule AND the financing to make the game happen. I give a lot of credit to Wesley for being really, really good and making a lot of compromises to fill their schedule, but I also give a lot of credit to the D3 teams that schedule them regularly. It takes guts to volunteer for that game.

Sometimes the schedule just isn't under your control, and you have to do extraordinary things. Alma traveled from Michigan to southwest VA last season to play W&L. Sewanee went out to the West Coast, and Willamette comes to TN this year for that game. None of theses teams are national powerhouses, they just wanted to respect their student athletes. There are many more examples and we need to give these schools credit for going the extra mile to make a full schedule.

Scheduling and financing this stuff just can't be an easy task and I don't envy the people who have to do it, but its in the athletes' best interest to schedule as many games as you are allowed.

[Pat Coleman]

None of theses teams are national powerhouses, they just wanted to respect their student athletes.

+1

[frank uible]

Players by their nature want to play. Generally they would prefer to play and lose over not playing at all.

[Pat Coleman]

And I just dislike when schools or conferences don't give their kids the maximum 40 regular-season opportunities to play football. They get so few to begin with!

[pumkinattack]

I have a somewhat specific perspective as Hobart is one of maybe 10 or so schools that are small, liberal arts schools, but have a D1 sport and I realize that this is a football specific site, but there are many considerations that go beyond football when it comes to a finite budget and an entire institution.  I played when Hobart switched from a 10 to a 9 game schedule (other than a 2 year stretch in the middle of the 2000's) and I hated it and still do, but having knowledge of the overall institutional goals and situation there and given the endowment (call it $200MM, a little less), it's not looking good that they'll go back to 10 games on a permanent basis (as the conferences shift around every year or two they may pick up an extra home and home gap filler, but that would be a one off).  There's also Title IX considerations as the lacrosse team has a relatively massive budget and the women's lacrosse "offset" (I realize men's and women's $ spent are fungible, but thinking of it in terms of match funding where men's and women's sports are the same and then backfilling sports to offset mens football is often the best way to think about it) isn't even close as it would be for a typical all DIII school. 

One can complain about Hobart being "unfair" to it's men's football team/kids in this situation, but I guarantee every school is "unfair" in some way or other to some class of students on campus given that very few (other than, ironically, the very wealthy NESCAC institutions) DIII schools have the resources to make everyone happy.  Notwithstanding, the talent that Hobart's brought in over the past decade, not in relative but rather absolute terms, has improved almost every year, so the kids don't seem to mind this situation.  In fact (a plug for my school), there's a linebacker coming in who I understand may be better than any we've had and we've had some great ones in the past decade. 

[frank uible]

Maybe some or all of the NESCAC colleges don't have to be "unfair" in this regard because of their relatively large endowments, but nonetheless they choose to be "unfair" to their football players for some reason(s) which they do not articulate to the public.