Just looked at the

[LandoComando]

Neither you nor I know what the future scheduling priorities are for Franklin and Kraft. Regardless, going to 10 games eliminates the option. No flexibility. That's bad.

Why do you think PSU would be open to playing more of the big, premier conference opponents if you also think they already don't want to do that with non-conf opponents?

The prelim 2024 schedule had each of the big 4 programs (PSU, OSU, UM, USC) playing only 2 of the possible 3 big opponents. That may have been by design, so they don't beat each other up too much and eliminate themselves from the playoffs. If that's true, they aren't going to suddenly replace the games against weaker opponents with the likes of Oregon and Washington, they are going to keep the schedule as light as the TV networks will allow. So the theory that 10 conf games will lead to better games could still be completely untrue.

Future schedules have already been made. Stop pretending we had any interest in scheduling real non conference games. It's insincere.

 

[Lion84]

Future schedules have already been made. Stop pretending we had any interest in scheduling real non conference games. It's insincere.

Why the F would we schedule harder non-conference games???? We have USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon coming into the conference and you want to beef up the non-conference schedule? WTF is you major malfunction?

 

[HailToPitt725]

Here’s my “hot take”: I think true non-conference games are going to be eliminated by the end of the decade. You’ll have 10-11 games against teams in your conference (which are moving towards 20+ members) and then you’ll have something like a Big Ten/SEC challenge based off the previous year’s standings. This will be after the “Power 2” create a defacto monopoly on the College Football Playoffs.

That’s my way of saying strength of schedule is going to be a moot point sooner than later when they adopt the closest thing we’ll get to balanced schedules.

 

[LandoComando]

Why the F would we schedule harder non-conference games???? We have USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon coming into the conference and you want to beef up the non-conference schedule? WTF is you major malfunction?

You of course realize when we were scheduling Temple, Syracuse and West Virginia as our major non-conference games those 4 schools weren't in the Big Ten, right?

The point is, those Big Ten games are a better option than letting Penn State schedule weak non-conference games.

Ohio State has Texas Alabama Georgia and Oregon on their future schedules prior to the expansion because they aren't afraid of competition. Even Michigan despite their current weak schedule had future series with Texas Oklahoma Washington and Notre Dame.

Our "big games" in our future schedules were West Virginia, Nevada, Marshall or Temple and Syracuse--stop pretending that's acceptable. Being a fan doesn't mean you have to act like a moron because you refuse to criticize the obvious.

 

[LandoComando]

Here’s my “hot take”: I think true non-conference games are going to be eliminated by the end of the decade. You’ll have 10-11 games against teams in your conference (which are moving towards 20+ members) and then you’ll have something like a Big Ten/SEC challenge based off the previous year’s standings. This will be after the “Power 2” create a defacto monopoly on the College Football Playoffs.

That’s my way of saying strength of schedule is going to be a moot point sooner than later when they adopt the closest thing we’ll get to balanced schedules.

Hopefully