College Football Week 13 discussions (In-state rivalry week/possible Black Friday)

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Outside of the SEC West, there isn't exactly this pile up of great teams that Boise would struggle against in a back to back to back or even playing 3 top teams over a 5-6 week span. That bleeds over into the SEC East as far as SOS goes, since I don't think any dodge all of LSU/Arky/Auburn/Alabama.

As of right now, Ohio State has beaten one currently ranked team, for example. They had their one game vs. a top ten opponent surrounded by 3 games vs. awful Big Ten opponents.

The only real difference in beating San Jose State and beating Minnesota is how long it takes to bring the backups in if you're a legit top ten team.

Sagarin SOS rankings
Ohio State 59
Wisconsin 61
TCU 68
Boise State 73

You won't find me defending Ohio State. Someone else included them in their list of teams to compare so I merely asked for their SOS with the others.

66% of the SEC West is in the top 12 of the BCS, and one more team is in the top 25. Ole Miss is the only one that isn't ranked and is still a dangerous team that just came off back to back Cotton Bowl wins and took LSU to the wire at their place (they are getting better as the year wears on).

The SEC East is no pushover, but not nearly on the level of the West. Keep in mind that teams in the west must play every other team in the west. Those teams have some of the most brutal schedules in the country. Trust me when I tell you its a bloodbath. Arkansas is the team I know the best and I can tell you we have countless injuries right now that would've crippled us most years, but we are enduring pretty well right now because of our much improved depth (something we have never had until Bobby Petrino arrived).

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Really? This is your argument? See my above post regarding those awesome opponents the SEC faces week after brutal week.

Yes, see SOS rankings and my post about the SEC West.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by molson

If it's unfair for Bosie St. to be considered for BCS bowls, and if the SEC has it so darn tough - would you favor Arkansas moving to a weaker conference? Maybe the Big East?

I do not contend it is unfair for Boise State to be considered for BCS bowls. Don't confuse me for JonInMiDGA. And no way in the world would I want Arkansas to move to a weaker conference.

My contention is that there isn't enough incentive for TCU or Boise State or any of those teams to play tougher teams. And that the system is flawed because this is even an issue.

[molson]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

I do not contend it is unfair for Boise State to be considered for BCS bowls. And no way in the world would I want Arkansas to move to a weaker conference.

My contention is that there isn't enough incentive for TCU or Boise State or any of those teams to play tougher teams. And that the system is flawed because this is even an issue.

Non-BCS conference teams have been undefeated this late in the season before and not been in the national championship discussion (including Boise St, more than once). And an undefeated season this year guarantees them nothing, not even a BCS bowl - they're always going to need the right pieces to fall elsewhere. They have the same incentive as anyone else.

[MJ4H]

Again, I disagree. That is in the past. There is growing pressure to consider these teams now over what there has been in the past. The human factor removes the hard-lined computer incentive that has been there in the past (or at least greatly lessens it).

With that, my company is here for the evening. Carry on without me.

[bronconick]

Anyone know where Boise/TCU/Utah/etc. schools would have been in the old BCS where strength of schedule was still in and computers counted for more?

I wonder if the new setup where human polls, which are susceptible to outside media pressure count for 2/3 is actually something that helps non-AQ teams.

[molson]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

Again, I disagree. That is in the past. There is growing pressure to consider these teams now over what there has been in the past. The human factor removes the hard-lined computer incentive that has been there in the past (or at least greatly lessens it).

With that, my company is here for the evening. Carry on without me.

The computers seem to like TCU/Boise St. more than the non-BCS teams of the past. I don't know if they changed those formulas before this season.

This is clearly Boise St's best team they've had. That fact has more of an impact on its place in the polls than you think it does. They're not simply a beneficiary of 2010 politcs.

[molson]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Anyone know where Boise/TCU/Utah/etc. schools would have been in the old BCS where strength of schedule was still in and computers counted for more?

I wonder if the new setup where human polls, which are susceptible to outside media pressure count for 2/3 is actually something that helps non-AQ teams.

We can look at the computer averages in the BCS now and make a rough guess. TCU is #3 and Boise St. is #5 (behind LSU). I don't think we're looking at any dramatic difference.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

Well, he does have a point. What is the incentive to improve their schedule?

What is the incentive for anyone to improve their schedule? The system discourages it. It's about not losing when it should be about winning. "The Ohio State University" is scheduling Eastern Michigan and Ohio.

[RainMaker]

I'm also assuming Ohio State will not be participating in the NCAA Tournament in March.

[TroyF]

I find it funny that people say there is no incentive for TCU or Boise to improve their schedules. If it isn't, why are they doing everything they can to improve those schedules?

TCU has Oklahoma, LSU or Arkansas on their schedule every year through 2016. Boise has added Georgia and Michigan State for future years. They just finished a stint with Oregon. They played Virginia Tech in a game they didn't have to play this year. . . when everyone had VT as a top 10 team in the country.

The TCU AD came out tonight and challenged Gee to go ahead and schedule TCU. His exact quote was any place, any time.

I actually stand closer to where jon does. I don't believe Boise would get out of the SEC without 2 or 3 losses. On the other side of it, I think it's ridiculous for someone to say that they shouldn't get the chance at a BCS game because their schedule sucks while you are busy scheduling Eastern Washington. If you think Boise or TCU are so easy, put them on your damned schedule.

TCU and Boise haven't been ducking anyone. It's why I can't wait until a playoff gets here. (probably when I'm 75)

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I find it funny that people say there is no incentive for TCU or Boise to improve their schedules. If it isn't, why are they doing everything they can to improve those schedules?

TCU has Oklahoma, LSU or Arkansas on their schedule every year through 2016. Boise has added Georgia and Michigan State for future years. They just finished a stint with Oregon. They played Virginia Tech in a game they didn't have to play this year. . . when everyone had VT as a top 10 team in the country.

The TCU AD came out tonight and challenged Gee to go ahead and schedule TCU. His exact quote was any place, any time.

I actually stand closer to where jon does. I don't believe Boise would get out of the SEC without 2 or 3 losses. On the other side of it, I think it's ridiculous for someone to say that they shouldn't get the chance at a BCS game because their schedule sucks while you are busy scheduling Eastern Washington. If you think Boise or TCU are so easy, put them on your damned schedule.

TCU and Boise haven't been ducking anyone. It's why I can't wait until a playoff gets here. (probably when I'm 75)

[EagleFan]

To add to that.... Hereare the SEC non-conference schedules...

San Jose State (48-3; Boise State won 48-0), Penn State, @Duke, Georgia State
Texas Tech, Monroe, Texas A&M, UTEP
Arkansas State, Clemson, Monroe, UT Chattanooga (sp?)
North Carolina, West Verginia, McNeese, Monroe
Memphis, Alcorn, @Houston, UAB
Jacksonville, @Tulane, Fresno State (55-38; Boise State won 51-0), UL-Lafayette
Miami of Ohiio, USF, App. State, Florida State
UL-Lafayette, @Colorado, Idaho State, Georgia Tech
@Louisville, Akron, Western Kentucky, Charlotte Southern
USM, Furman, Troy, @Clemson
UT Martin, Oregon, UAB, @Memphis
Northwestern, @UConn, @Eastern Michigan, Wake Forrest


Now for TCU and Boise State
Oregon State, Tennessee Tech, Baylor, @SMU
Virginia Tech, @Wyoming, Oregon State, Toledo

Limited sample but it looks like Boise handled the similar opponents much better than the SEC did (just two common). SEC won the two by a 103-41 total. Boise won the two by a 99-0 total.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I find it funny that people say there is no incentive for TCU or Boise to improve their schedules. If it isn't, why are they doing everything they can to improve those schedules?
.....
TCU and Boise haven't been ducking anyone. It's why I can't wait until a playoff gets here. (probably when I'm 75)

Unlike OSU's contradictory, douchebag President, I don't want to denigrate TCU or BSU, but we've covered this topic before - Boise State turns down 2 for 1's and less than lucrative 1 for 1's. It is a shame because I thought TCU was the 2nd best team, I now think BSU is the 2nd best team, but unless the Cam Newton All-Stars lose Boise does not deserve to play in the title game. Argue this is right, ok, argue this is wrong, ok, argue that schools financial calculations factor way too much into scheduling, fine ..... but please do not continue to argue that no one will schedule Boise when they would be guaranteed their pick of opponents and dates if they agreed to play for free.

A lot of teams do duck Boise (and TCU). That doesn't mean that those schools are doing everything in their power, or that they aren't ducking teams (like Nebraska.)

[RainMaker]

Whlie Boise State doesn't have as tough a schedule, doesn't the fact that they don't have a big budget to pay their players even things out a bit? I doubt Boise has enough in the budget to buy a Cam Newton like Auburn. Or buy LaMichael James a new Range Rover.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Unlike OSU's contradictory, douchebag President, I don't want to denigrate TCU or BSU, but we've covered this topic before - Boise State turns down 2 for 1's and less than lucrative 1 for 1's.

This is where I have a problem with your argument. Why should BSU have to schedule 2 for 1's? Financially it does not make sense for them to do so, especially against a team like Nebraska whom, despite some people's opinion, is only a slightly better than average football team right now. BSU is clearly better than most of these programs, I fail to see why they should have to travel everywhere else to prove themselves. While I understand the economics of their smaller stadium not being lucrative to a larger program (i.e., Nebraska), a 1 for 1 is fair to both sides, while a 2 for 1 is not.

[Young Drachma]

Boise State and TCU get respect because they've built successful programs. One year blips in the road wouldn't matter much and didn't. But year in and year out, they continue to do their thing and people start to realize "ok, their league is shit, but these guys are truly an elite program right now."

They're not paying guys, obviously, have the constraints of (in Boise's case) being in a place that's not exactly Florida in terms of recruiting and doesn't have the advantages of more established programs in more established leagues and so, their margin for error is far greater.

So to all of the people making the circular argument that they need to essentially take one for the team and play more "prestigious" programs on their terms, just to prove to the peanut gallery that they're worth, is a bad business decision for the program (as others have said) and wouldn't advance their aims in the slightest.

I think these athletic departments are fine right now with going undefeated or losing a game every few years, keeping their names in the news and generating more buzz for themselves and letting the other people debate the merit of their inclusion in a national championship dog and pony show.

Non-AQ schools go to BCS games and do well for the most part and year in and year out consistently prove the gaps are narrowing. No real need to go trying to "prove" something and undo what you've got going, when the risk is all yours.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

This is where I have a problem with your argument. Why should BSU have to schedule 2 for 1's? Financially it does not make sense for them to do so, especially against a team like Nebraska whom, despite some people's opinion, is only a slightly better than average football team right now. BSU is clearly better than most of these programs, I fail to see why they should have to travel everywhere else to prove themselves. While I understand the economics of their smaller stadium not being lucrative to a larger program (i.e., Nebraska), a 1 for 1 is fair to both sides, while a 2 for 1 is not.

They don't have to, but then they can't say things like “It’s easy for the presidents to talk, but ask the ADs when’s the last time that they seriously entertained taking requests or inviting Boise State to (play them). If you’re Boise State or TCU, they’re going to want to steer way clear of you.” Boise State has its niche, it's working fabulously for them, but they piss me off when they (or their supporters) keep up this fallacy that no one will play them. Ohio State's President looks uninformed and was arguing with very little to stand on, but Boise's President is also deliberately pushing a misleading narrative.

PS - If Nebraska is only a slightly better than average team, and they'd easily be Boise's 2nd best opponent, what does that say about Boise's schedule strength?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This UT - A&M game is just fugly football. I'm guessing that most Texas fans are hoping they lose just so they don't have to watch another bad performance this year.

[EagleFan]

Easy solution for the debates....

A freaking playoff system. The BCS is even worse than the previous system. At least with the previous system there wasn't an illusion that you are getting a real national champion.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Good to see the young fans at the Mizzou games in Cancun didn't forget about the upcoming Border War game.............

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Boise State has its niche, it's working fabulously for them, but they piss me off when they (or their supporters) keep up this fallacy that no one will play them. Ohio State's President looks uninformed and was arguing with very little to stand on, but Boise's President is also deliberately pushing a misleading narrative.

Sounds to me like you are only hearing what you want to hear. Teams like Ohio State, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Michigan, and numerous others have absolutely no reason to play Boise State. They perceive their conference(s) as being tough enough that they don't need a non-conference game like BSU to bolster their schedule, so they stick with the Tennessee Tech's of the world instead. At the same time, BSU has no reason to do a 2 for 1 with anyone, because they make more from home games than whatever another team will pay them for visiting.

Here are some interesting links to stories regarding this situation for BSU, some of which are from last year. I am sure you can find more if you google it.

Boise State athletic director Gene Bleymaier acknowledges scheduling issues - ESPN

Boise BCS blocked - College Football - Rivals.com

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/1...a-tougher.html

Boise steps up to the scheduling plate again, will take a future swing at Mich. St. | CollegeFootballTalk

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Sounds to me like you are only hearing what you want to hear. Teams like Ohio State, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Michigan, and numerous others have absolutely no reason to play Boise State. They perceive their conference(s) as being tough enough that they don't need a non-conference game like BSU to bolster their schedule, so they stick with the Tennessee Tech's of the world instead. At the same time, BSU has no reason to do a 2 for 1 with anyone, because they make more from home games than whatever another team will pay them for visiting.

Here are some interesting links to stories regarding this situation for BSU, some of which are from last year. I am sure you can find more if you google it.

Boise State athletic director Gene Bleymaier acknowledges scheduling issues - ESPN

Boise BCS blocked - College Football - Rivals.com

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/1...a-tougher.html

Boise steps up to the scheduling plate again, will take a future swing at Mich. St. | CollegeFootballTalk

Here are some quotes from Boise's AD - I'll even pull them from your articles

Bleymaier acknowledged that Boise State is encountering several obstacles in getting deals done with automatic qualifying schools. Boise State is looking for home-and-home games ... The Broncos would also be open to a guarantee game, but the school is asking for $900,000 to $1 million to play.
...
Boise State is getting $1.25 million to play Virginia Tech at FedEx Field next year, which is the highest guarantee in both school and Western Athletic Conference history. The only number that comes close is the reported $1 million San Jose State is getting to play at Alabama in next year's season opener. Across the country and in the current economy, that type of guarantee has been rare

Perhaps most damning there is this passage

Boise State's scheduling quandary is perplexing considering several high-level non-AQ teams have been able to secure both home-and-home and guaranteed deals. TCU has some great future opponents, including home-and-homes with Texas Tech, Baylor, LSU and Arkansas. It also has a guarantee game with Oklahoma in 2012. Utah has a guarantee at Notre Dame and and will play home-and-home games with Colorado and Iowa State. Both Utah and BYU have series against Boise State lined up.

Hint - it's not as perplexing when you find out the financial parameters Boise attempts to set up.

Let's go to the second article (from Dan Wetzel, who has a slight financial interest in the matter considering his book about problems with the BCS)

While Bleymaier won’t say specifically which schools have turned him down, he will say that the open date remains – Sept. 3, 2011. The offer stands, the Broncos will go anywhere. And, lo and behold, guess which major conference school happens to have an open date? How about Harvey Perlman’s Nebraska, the one-time powerhouse which could use all the big attention grabbing games it can get these days?
Don’t hold your breath on that one – chicken or collusion, the result is the same.

Guess what? Nebraska did offer to play them on that date (as part of a 2 for 1). And Boise turned it down because they wanted $1 million minimum for each of their appearances in Lincoln while the Huskers were offering in the 800-850 thousand range.

From your 3rd link

For those wondering why the Broncos just don’t hit the road for big-name games that help their strength of schedule, here’s why: Football games generate roughly $1.86 million per home date. Even with guarantees soaring, the Broncos make more by playing at home.

From your 4th one, Boise scheduled a 2 for 1 (or a buyout game with games 2 and 3 so far down the road they'll be bought out) with Michigan State where they are getting paid 1.2 million for the 1st game.

Quite frankly, I don't see where you disagree with anything I said in my prior post(s). I'll go bullet point form so you can pick and choose where the disagreement is.

- BCS conference teams think their schedules are tougher
- They are. (although outside the SEC West not by as much as they think)
- Boise schedules based off its fiduciary interest (as is their right)
- This leads to them turning down 2 for 1's or away games for less than what they perceive as their worth
- This in turn weakens their schedule strength
- Other non-AQ teams have no problem scheduling multiple BCS teams and even getting them for home and homes
- Boise could as well if it lowered its financial demands
- Hence, the majority of these schools aren't refusing to play Boise because 'they are scared' but rather because it is not in their fiduciary interest (as is their right)
- Boise's President and AD love pushing the narrative that other schools refuse to play them while disingenuously leaving out the fact that this is in large part due to their financial conditions

For good measure
- I'd love to see Boise play top 25 level BCS opponents every OOC game
- That rarely makes financial sense for both sides
- That calculation won't change whether there is a BCS, a Bowl system, or a playoff

[EagleFan]

So you would love to see Boise State play top 25 schools in all their non-conference games while the SEC schedules The Sisters of the Blind for their non-conference games...

Boise already scheduled a better non-conference schedule than the SEC (if you base it off preseason predictions). Yet they take a hit for not playing Nebraska? We're not talking about the Nebraska of a decade ago, we're talking about the Notre Dame of the Big 12 at this point.


Give us a 16 team playoff system and everyone will be happy. Sure you'll get complaints from a handful of schools that just miss the cut but we'e talking about schools that would be 17th or worse in the ratings so it's not like we're talking about undefeated teams (or 1 loss teams) being left out in the cold.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Boise already scheduled a better non-conference schedule than the SEC (if you base it off preseason predictions). Yet they take a hit for not playing Nebraska?

Yes, they do. Because they play virtually no one worth a shit IN conference. They can schedule whatever they can/choose to work out, but don't expect them to be taken as seriously as those who play more legitimate schedules unless their non-conf makes up for it.

Give us a 16 team playoff system and everyone will be happy.

Umm ... nope. But I do have a better idea: redefine D-I and either BSU finds a home in a conference that is more than a decent high school region or they cease to be a part of the conversation (along with 2-3 dozen other schools).

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yes, they do. Because they play virtually no one worth a shit IN conference. They can schedule whatever they can/choose to work out, but don't expect them to be taken as seriously as those who play more legitimate schedules unless their non-conf makes up for it.



Umm ... nope. But I do have a better idea: redefine D-I and either BSU finds a home in a conference that is more than a decent high school region or they cease to be a part of the conversation (along with 2-3 dozen other schools).

I have an even better idea, why doesn't the SEC become NFL-2 and fuck off from college sports forever? (oh wait, they'd never go for a salary cap. Silly me)

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yes, they do. Because they play virtually no one worth a shit IN conference. They can schedule whatever they can/choose to work out, but don't expect them to be taken as seriously as those who play more legitimate schedules unless their non-conf makes up for it.



Umm ... nope. But I do have a better idea: redefine D-I and either BSU finds a home in a conference that is more than a decent high school region or they cease to be a part of the conversation (along with 2-3 dozen other schools).

Explain how a playoff system isn't the answer? Afraid the SEC will be exposed?

[molson]

Somehow I doubt that if Boise St. swapped Toledo in their schedule with Georgia Tech or N.C. State that suddenly they would have leapfrogged over Oregon or Auburn in the polls. And who knows what kind of boost even Nebraska gives you in say, 2016. There's obviously a balance that goes in to schedule. It'd be pretty shortsighted to schedule like a text sim, "let's see, in 2016, if we go undefeated, and exactly 1 other non-BCS conference school outside the SEC also goes undefeated, we might be able to sneak past them in the rankings if that other school plays a few close games and has a terrible non-conference schedule, and we take a financial hit and schedule this game instead of that one".

The arguments are interesting, but the bottom line is to this point, Boise St. has been a wildly successful program, have overcome a lack of the advantages many other schools have. Whatever their schedule, they've had a more successful college football season than most of the BCS schools, have a chance to continue that in what could be a very tough game tonight, and could have a chance to prove themselves against again some BCS power in the bowl season.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yes, they do. Because they play virtually no one worth a shit IN conference. They can schedule whatever they can/choose to work out, but don't expect them to be taken as seriously as those who play more legitimate schedules unless their non-conf makes up for it.

MWC > ACC, and that gap will increase even more with the addition of Boise St. next season.

And there's nobody Boise St. could possibly schedule that would stop your rants here about them. Fortunately, if anyone of the people in power feel that way, they apparently do the same thing you do (trash them here than vote for them in the top 5 of the fofc poll). Top 5 is all you can shoot for really, it's a matter of what happens in other games after that, and if even JonInMiddleGA; worshiper of southern college-pro football puts them in the top 5 when he ranks teams - Boise St. has clearly done enough.

Trying to improve your schedule from one which delivers you a top 3 ranking to one that will guarantee you a #1-#2 ranking, and doing it several years in advance, seems like it would be a pretty impossible task. It's just luck at that point, and what happens with other games/programs/schedules. We can make those kind of silly nitpicks about anyone. If LSU played some top 10 team instead of UL-Monroe, they'd probably be ahead of both Boise St. and TCU in the polls right now. They're that close anyway.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Here are some quotes from Boise's AD - I'll even pull them from your articlesPerhaps most damning there is this passageHint - it's not as perplexing when you find out the financial parameters Boise attempts to set up.

Let's go to the second article (from Dan Wetzel, who has a slight financial interest in the matter considering his book about problems with the BCS)Guess what? Nebraska did offer to play them on that date (as part of a 2 for 1). And Boise turned it down because they wanted $1 million minimum for each of their appearances in Lincoln while the Huskers were offering in the 800-850 thousand range.

From your 3rd linkFrom your 4th one, Boise scheduled a 2 for 1 (or a buyout game with games 2 and 3 so far down the road they'll be bought out) with Michigan State where they are getting paid 1.2 million for the 1st game.

Quite frankly, I don't see where you disagree with anything I said in my prior post(s). I'll go bullet point form so you can pick and choose where the disagreement is.

- BCS conference teams think their schedules are tougher
- They are. (although outside the SEC West not by as much as they think)
- Boise schedules based off its fiduciary interest (as is their right)
- This leads to them turning down 2 for 1's or away games for less than what they perceive as their worth
- This in turn weakens their schedule strength
- Other non-AQ teams have no problem scheduling multiple BCS teams and even getting them for home and homes
- Boise could as well if it lowered its financial demands
- Hence, the majority of these schools aren't refusing to play Boise because 'they are scared' but rather because it is not in their fiduciary interest (as is their right)
- Boise's President and AD love pushing the narrative that other schools refuse to play them while disingenuously leaving out the fact that this is in large part due to their financial conditions

For good measure
- I'd love to see Boise play top 25 level BCS opponents every OOC game
- That rarely makes financial sense for both sides
- That calculation won't change whether there is a BCS, a Bowl system, or a playoff

I will just point out that a team like TCU is able to schedule those opponents because...wait for it......they are all in the south, thus limiting travel costs and increasing revenue due to less travel for the fan base.

Other than that, I will cease to argue with you and JIMG, as nothing I say will change the fact that you guys are in love with the BCS and the SEC/Big 10/ACC/Big East. Regardless of what BSU does, it won't be enough.

So, let's just get a playoff in pro..err, college football (much to the chagrin of JIMG).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Explain how a playoff system isn't the answer?

Because you're trying to answer a question that doesn't exist.

College football has a system in place to determine a national champion, a system that the participants agreed to. Vast amounts of money are made. Large numbers of people are entertained. The world continues to turn.

CFB "needs" a playoff about as much as NASCAR "needed" The Chase (or the PGA "needed" whatever the heck they do).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Other than that, I will cease to argue with you and JIMG, as nothing I say will change the fact that you guys are in love with the BCS and the SEC/Big 10/ACC/Big East.

Actually, I'd rather the BCS go away & the previous bowl-tie system be returned. But better the system today than a wholly unnecessary change that devalues the regular season (and regular season performance).

[RomaGoth]

[quote=JonInMiddleGA;2385972][quote=RomaGoth;2385968] Other than that, I will cease to argue with you and JIMG, as nothing I say will change the fact that you guys are in love with the BCS and the SEC/Big 10/ACC/Big East.

Actually, I'd rather the BCS go away & the previous bowl-tie system be returned. But better the system today than a wholly unnecessary change that devalues the regular season (and regular season performance).

See, this is an argument that I just don't get. How does a playoff devalue the regular season exactly? Every other sport has some sort of playoff system and it seems to work just fine. A game between Michigan/Ohio State, Alabama/Auburn, etc., will still mean something, because the loser probably doesn't make the playoffs. Unless of course, you are referring to the epic struggles with UAB, Louisiana Monroe, and Georgia Southern.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

MWC > ACC, and that gap will increase even more with the addition of Boise St. next season.

Umm ... no.

As bad as the ACC is -- and there's not really a shortage of me criticizing it around here -- 11 of 12 teams are still in the Massey top 100, 9 of 12 are in the top 60, and the absolute dregs this year (Wake) is 112.

The MWC has 5 of 9 in the top 75 and 4 of 9 at 129 or below. On the whole, even the Big Least is more challenge. Hell, there isn't that much gap on the whole between the MWC and CUSA.

[cschex]

Originally Posted by molson

Trying to improve your schedule from one which delivers you a top 3 ranking to one that will guarantee you a #1-#2 ranking, and doing it several years in advance, seems like it would be a pretty impossible task. It's just luck at that point, and what happens with other games/programs/schedules. We can make those kind of silly nitpicks about anyone. If LSU played some top 10 team instead of UL-Monroe, they'd probably be ahead of both Boise St. and TCU in the polls right now. They're that close anyway.

I've seen a few people on this thread lump LSU's schedule in with "Sister of the Blind"/other SEC non=conference schedules and frankly it's ridiculous. In addition to playing the SEC West + Florida every year, this year LSU opened with a neutral site game against UNC (initially a top 20 team before all of the sanctions) and the projected Big East favorite in West Virginia. Next year they travel to Morgantown and open the season against Oregon. I think playing 2 out of 12 games against in-state opposition is acceptable, and they thought they had scheduled top 10 (or at least top 20) teams, it just didn't work out that way.

Anyway, carry on.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cschex

I've seen a few people on this thread lump LSU's schedule in with "Sister of the Blind"/other SEC non=conference schedules and frankly it's ridiculous. In addition to playing the SEC West + Florida every year, this year LSU opened with a neutral site game against UNC (initially a top 20 team before all of the sanctions) and the projected Big East favorite in West Virginia. Next year they travel to Morgantown and open the season against Oregon. I think playing 2 out of 12 games against in-state opposition is acceptable, and they thought they had scheduled top 10 (or at least top 20) teams, it just didn't work out that way.

Anyway, carry on.

Definitely - and that's why LSU's ranked as highly as they are and still have a chance at a national championship.

Boise St. scheduled some BCS out-of-conference teams also, which helped their ranking.

But every singe team (except the #1 team), could improve their schedule even more, and can look at what they "could have done". With Boise St. people have no problem embracing this idea, but nobody can accept it when it comes to a BCS Conference school. LSU's non-conference schedule was excellent for an SEC team - but it could have been a lot better, which would have put them in a better position today. Same as Boise St. and anyone else.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by molson

MWC > ACC, and that gap will increase even more with the addition of Boise St. next season.

The ACC's lack of a front runner severely hurts their perception every year.

Heck a mid to bottom Clemson team this year took Auburn to OT on the plains with Gameday watching. Yet has looked awful in games against other ACC teams.

When an ACC team beats an ACC team its proof how crappy the conference is, but when an SEC team loses 3 SEC games it just shows how great the SEC is.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

The ACC's lack of a front runner severely hurts their perception every year.

Heck a mid to bottom Clemson team this year took Auburn to OT on the plains with Gameday watching. Yet has looked awful in games against other ACC teams.

When an ACC team beats an ACC team its proof how crappy the conference is, but when an SEC team loses 3 SEC games it just shows how great the SEC is.

ACC doesn't win any big games out of-of-conference. Check out this random website's pre-season list of "the 10 most important non-conference football games for the ACC in 2010." and how they fared in those games:

http://www.allsportsdiscussion.com/2...C-in-2010.aspx

1. Virginia Tech v. Boise St. LOSS
2. Miami v. Ohio St. LOSS
3. North Carolina v. LSU LOSS
4. Florida St. v. Florida (tomorrow)
5. Florida St. v. Oklahoma LOSS
6. Georgia Tech v. Georgia (tomorrow)
7. Clemson v. Auburn LOSS
8. Boston College v. Notre Dame LOSS
9. Wake Forest v. Stanford LOSS
10. Any game v. an FCS school LOSS (i.e., they didn't run the table and in fact their best team lost to an FCS school)

So the Florida/FSU game tomorrow is likely their only chance to avoid an 0-for-10 on this list. Yes, its a somewhat arbitrary list but I'm not sure of any other 2010 big ACC non-conference games should have cracked it pre-season.

[CU Tiger]

Do you not see the scheduling issue there?
- VT played probably the best non-BCS school in the country..Ok Ill take that as a true loss as Neutral Site
- Mia the 4th or 5th best ACC team against the Big Ten #1 ON THE ROAD
- NC the 3/4 AC team against the ?2? best SEC team NEUTRAL SITE
- we will see
- A bad bad loss...not that OU isnt a good team ON THE ROAD
- we will see
- The ACC #6 against the national #1 ON THE ROAD
- A horrible ACC team and a horrible ND team ON THE ROAD
- ACC DEAD LAST against Pac 10 #1 ON THE ROAD

Let see what happens if Vandy, or Kentucky, or Cal or Texas tech decide to come to Chapel Hill to Tallahassee to Blacksburg or even to Clemson...

Frankly the ACC has been scared of no one and has scheduled the best consistently. I will not argue they are the best or even an elite conference, but the acting like the MWC is clearly better is laughable as well...

[digamma]

Fourth place ACC team Miami dismantled the likely Big East champion 31-3. That same Big East champion played the vaunted Utah Utes to an overtime game on the road.

11th place ACC team Virginia also went on the road and played USC to a 17-14 game.

The ACC faces a huge perception gap, as CU points out. But, as my fellow choir member also notes, comparing it to the MWC is a joke.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by digamma

Fourth place ACC team Miami dismantled the likely Big East champion 31-3. That same Big East champion played the OVERRATED Utah Utes to an overtime .

Alright...fixed that for you

[molson]

The ACC does schedule well out-of-conference, that's true. I don't know if that column is indicative of how the ACC views itself, but these were the games that at least someone thought they needed to win to prove themselves, and they've gone 0-for-8 thus far. Sure, after the fact, a lot of them look like obvious outcomes - but that's kind of the point. Yes, they might do better against middle-of-the-road BCS schools, but so has the MWC + Boise St.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by molson

The ACC does schedule well out-of-conference, that's true. I don't know if that column is indicative of how the ACC views itself, but these were the games that at least someone thought they needed to win to prove themselves, and they've gone 0-for-8 thus far. Sure, after the fact, a lot of them look like obvious outcomes - but that's kind of the point. Yes, they might do better against middle-of-the-road BCS schools, but so has the MWC + Boise St.

If that's kind of the point, then you've changed your point, which was, initially, that MWC > ACC.

If the ACC teams could play UNLV, Colorado State, New Mexico and Wyoming...even Duke, UVA and Wake might be bowl eligible.

[CU Tiger]

Ok ACC aside...

Read this:
As the Plains Burn......(Updated 11-17) - SEC Football - TigerDroppings.com

This is not good.
I hadn't really been following the Cam story but here is a summary.
An AU booster and BOT member ran a large bank ($23B)
Bank took TARP money
Bank has questionable funds, so FBI starts investigating ending in FDIC seizing control of bank.
Every member of AU BOT has sizeable loans with said bank and questionable payment history.
Another BOT member owns casino, dog track and other legal gambling sites.
Sites are found to have rigged gaming machines, that will auto pay out based on what card is inserted.
AU players found to posses magic gaming cards that always win on the slots.
Now there is a paper trail between the bank, other AU bot members and Cecil Newton
AU continues to play Cam, despite University president's urges not to.
Rumors that SEC may kick AU out when all the dust settles...

WOW this is better than SMU stuff here.

[MJ4H]

[BishopMVP]

Romagoth etc this is why it's pointless to argue with you on the topic. I say this

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

- I'd love to see Boise play top 25 level BCS opponents every OOC game
- That rarely makes financial sense for both sides
- That calculation won't change whether there is a BCS, a Bowl system, or a playoff

and you somehow think/want me to be saying

Originally Posted by EagleFan

So you would love to see Boise State play top 25 schools in all their non-conference games while the SEC schedules The Sisters of the Blind for their non-conference games...

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

nothing I say will change the fact that you guys are in love with the BCS and the SEC/Big 10/ACC/Big East. Regardless of what BSU does, it won't be enough.

So, let's just get a playoff in pro..err, college football (much to the chagrin of JIMG).

- Just as I would love to see Boise State play more good opponents, I would love every good team to only schedule good teams.
- There are legitimate financial reasons this doesn't happen, just as there are reasons why Boise scheduled home games vs. Toledo this year and Miami (Ohio)/UC Davis last year
- Boise doesn't need to schedule anybody OOC
- but since their in conference schedule is much weaker than the PAC-10/Big 12/Big 10/particularly SEC, if they want to make it to the title game under the current system they do need to schedule a tougher OOC than those teams
- All of this has nothing to do with a playoff (I'm fairly agnostic and see pros and cons both ways)
- I'm going to go enjoy watching what are essentially 2 playoff quarterfinals (maybe a 3rd if Auburn/Oregon lose)

Originally Posted by EaglesFan

Boise already scheduled a better non-conference schedule than the SEC (if you base it off preseason predictions). Yet they take a hit for not playing Nebraska? We're not talking about the Nebraska of a decade ago, we're talking about the Notre Dame of the Big 12 at this point.

Boise State didn't exactly schedule a murderer's row. They had 1 borderline top 10 team in VT, one borderline top 25 team in Oregon State, and 2 cupcakes. LSU scheduled 2 top 25 teams in UNC and Clemson. Florida scheduled FSU and USF. Every other (decent) SEC team scheduled one top 25 opponent. Either way, the point isn't that the SEC (or anyone else) schedules tougher OOC than Boise - it's that Boise needs to line up a murderer's row OOC if it wants to be picked ahead of an equal-lossed team from the top 4 BCS conferences. (It doesn't make that the priority, which is fine, but they can't then eat their cake too.)

I also don't get the constant denigration of Nebraska. They're 9-2, ranked in the top 15, have two wins over current top 15 teams and will probably play in the B12 title game. No they're not the Tommie Frazier-led juggernaut, but they are better than Toledo and Wyoming, and I would have bet anything I own on that coming into the season.

Originally Posted by molson

every single team (except the #1 team), could improve their schedule even more, and can look at what they "could have done". With Boise St. people have no problem embracing this idea, but nobody can accept it when it comes to a BCS Conference school. LSU's non-conference schedule was excellent for an SEC team - but it could have been a lot better, which would have put them in a better position today. Same as Boise St. and anyone else.

Again, where do you see people saying this (maybe JiMGA has and I missed that post)? Weak OOC schedule cost Auburn a title game chance in 2004, and has been the difference for numerous 1 (and 2) loss teams in other years. 1-loss LSU will likely lose out to undefeated Boise or TCU, hence they should have scheduled tougher OOC, just as Stanford should have, just as Auburn and Oregon should have if they lose 1 of the next two, just as Oklahoma State should have, and just as the 3 Big Ten teams should have.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Either way, the point isn't that the SEC (or anyone else) schedules tougher OOC than Boise - it's that Boise needs to line up a murderer's row OOC [i]if it wants to be picked ahead of an equal-lossed team from the top 4 BCS conferences.

And damned if I understand how that point keeps getting missed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

As Alabama jumps all over Auburn early, I chuckle at the hilarity that would ensue if BSU lost to Nevada and Oregon lost to Arizona.

[MJ4H]

I'm supposed to be rooting for Auburn because it is the only shot we have at the Sugar Bowl, but man, I just can't do it. I am loving seeing them get the turd pounded out of them.

I guess this is what I call a win-win for me.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

As Alabama jumps all over Auburn early, I chuckle at the hilarity that would ensue if BSU lost to Nevada and Oregon lost to Arizona.

I know I'm rooting for that scenario.