2009 College Football: Week 1 Discussion

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

Fair enough, but you've put it in the right context (you define "decent" as a certain area within the top 25).

Just don't take that too far. There are years where VG might go a lot deeper than it does this year & I'm not sure that the caliber of the 25th ranked team might be better this year than it was last year.

I simply took a look at the latest polls for an easy reference point & looked to see what label I would attach to those teams as they stand right now and that kind of gives me a range.

Like I said, I'm not sold on being able to call GT much more than "decent with a chance to be good & a very slim chance to be approach very good if everything falls their way & they work their asses off every week" so if I'm that tough on my own favorite then I'm probably not going to be any easier on anyone else.

[Logan]

Again, all fair Jon.

One thing I know for sure: there isn't a bucket in the world big enough where USF and Cincy could fit together.

[DeToxRox]

What hurts the Big East is right now the perception it is just a one team league. It was WVU and the rest, now it's turning into Cinncy, WVU and the rest. I think there is a lot of doubt with Bill Stewart, but he is recruiting very well at WV. That said, it's going to be an interesting season for the Mountaineers. If they can get some wins and so does Cinncy, then you have two teams people talk about and that's what the Big East needs right now.

Cinncy has Kelly, the hottest coaching commodity in a long time, and if he goes, you have to believe Cinncy will go back to mediocrity.

Rutgers is slowly trudging along but I think it's fair to wonder if Schiano is the right guy to lead the team to the next level. The work he has done to get Rutgers where it is at is admirable but he has to start producing some key wins.

USF seems to have plateaued a bit after having some momentum building.

Pitt has good talent but I don't think anyone thinks they will be a BCS caliber team as long as the Stash is there.

UConn is a nice little program that has a long ways to go.

Syracuse is gonna' take time to rebuild but Marrone seems like he has potential to do some things there.

Louisville has sunk like a rock under Kragthorpe, and that has killed the Big East more then anything. If Louisville was still strong right now, you could conceivably have a solid 3 at the top, with Rutgers right there, and USF and UConn not far behind.

Now, to fix the Big East, one thing is they have to expand. These 5 OOC games are killing them. Obviously they want to maximize revenue by bringing in home games but playing Howard and FIU back to back for example isn't going to cut it.

The Big East would be wise to add UCF and East Carolina, though academics would surely take a hit.

As long as the Big East is an 8 team conference though I just don't see it ever being a huge National power.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

Yeah, but with the MWC when the top 3 play the other teams it is basically their bowl game and then you add in the rankings and it turns into a tougher game than it usually is.

But they can win out, with FSU, Utah and TCU all at home it helps a lot.

I just don't see TCU or especially Utah getting more "up" for BYU because they're ranked #7 instead of #15, and it immeasurably improves the chances of making the title game.

Originally Posted by Blade6119

I think Boise would beat BYU, I really do... and I think TCU will beat BYU this year...Im sorry, but beating OU without arguably its two best players isnt nearly as impressive as people are making it out to be. Great win, yes, but it wasnt like they looked as talented(they didnt) and it wasnt like they didnt need a lot of late luck(they did). Boise on the other hand walked up and down the field on Oregon, a team that was supposed to be top 15 this year(which is where an OU team without Bradford and Gresham would fall into as well pre-season)

Oklahoma still had 2 of its 3 best players in Lewis and McCoy, and would destroy Oregon's offense head to head. It's college football, so maybe Oregon is going to drastically improve without its best RB, no returning WR's and a weak OL, but every year teams in the top 10/15 fall apart, and Oregon looks like a major candidate this year (Utah's another one living off last year's rep imo.)

Originally Posted by Blade6119

No, but I was a firm believer that a team losing that much talent on the O-line should have been lower then top 3, and the only reason you were up there was Bradford(Just as I was a firm believer Mizzou returning that much talent on the O-line should have been ranked higher, and the only reason they were ranked that low was the loss of skill position talent).

Im always a big believer in winning starts from the lines out, and I really believe that the OU line the past 2 years was one of the best ive seen in a long time. It just mauled anyone and everyone(I even think they did a great job in the title game, but some other players didnt come through like they should have).

Same logic applies to BYU, who is working with a new o-line...I think Max Hall is a good QB, and a great guy in real life from the few times I met him at ASU before he transferred, but that O-line will get them killed one day. McCoy was dominating them, but the OU secondary couldnt hold up. Like I said before, all credit for a great win, but its not an elite one by any means.

How do you say this while defending a win over Oregon, which lost just as much on the O-line? Also, Oklahoma's DL is probably the best in the country - BYU is not the only ones who will be getting dominated by McCoy and co. this season.

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Don't be surprised if you see Boise State in the Mountain West in a year or two. Especially with the BCS reevaluating the conferences coming up. The Mountain West can bring in Boise State and take credit for their rankings the past few years even without them being in the conference.

I'm not sure if Molson is correct and Boise St. would be allowed to switch for football-only (I doubt the WAC would allow it), but the rest of Boise's athletic program isn't up to the standards of the football team and would get killed in the MWC.

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Seriously, check out the rest of Boise's OOC schedule:

Miami, OH
@ Bowling Green
UC Davis (FBS)
@ Tulsa

If Boise State wants a shot at the BCS title game, they have to schedule tougher opponents than this. People like to compare Boise State in football to Gonzaga in basketball, but give the Zags credit for scheduling tough OOC games to counter their weak in-conference slate.

I think Bowling Green and Tulsa are decent teams, and wouldn't be surprised if one of them pulled out a win at home vs. Boise, but the overall point stands.

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Sorry, but I have to call a foul here. Every year, Florida and Texas (2 specific examples) play absolute candy-ass opponents outside of conference. And don't tell me how hard their conference games are. Yes, as a conference, the SEC and Big 12 are better than the WAC (duh!), but playing Charleston Southern Virgin of the Lake and winning by 50 points...? C'mon.

Florida - the team that has FSU every year, the best Sun Belt team (Troy) this year and Miami and Hawaii from the WAC last year. Texas is weaker, but have scheduled Arkansas, TCU and a home and home vs. Ohio St. the past few seasons. More importantly, you'll also note they've bitched about not making the title game twice and the one year they did was the year they won @Ohio St OOC. Scheduling still matters there.

Yes, their schedule is pretty easy, but there is just not much they can really do about it. I know that they have tried to schedule tougher opponents, but nobody wants to play them. What does an Oklahoma, Nebraska, Florida State, Michigan, Notre Dame, etc., have to gain by playing a BSU in a weak conference?

Oklahoma? The ones that just lost to BYU, have played TCU, Tulsa (including @Tulsa), Utah St and North Texas the past 3 years in addition to a quality BCS team like Cincy or Miami? Nebraska - two Sun Belt opponents this year before VT, 2 WAC teams last year before VT, Nevada in 2007. Florida St. - USF, @Florida, @BYU all this year, Colorado/Florida last year. Michigan - BSU has a gripe here, but Michigan has lost to Utah, Notre Dame, Oregon and the team that replaced Boise (App St) OOC at home the past 2 seasons. Notre Dame - finally stepped down from only scheduling "prestigious" BCS teams (and service academies) to start the last 2 seasons with San Diego St and Nevada and have BYU te next 4 seasons - including 2x at BYU.

It's not going to be easy, and you'll have to go on the road at first, but that's not just Boise St. - Florida St. had to do it early on in Bowden's tenure. Teams like TCU, Utah and BYU - the BCS gatecrashers you're trying to emulate - are doing it (and somehow managing to get the occasional home game). Fresno St. (@Wisconsin, @Cincy, @Illinois) and Hawaii (@WSU, Wisconsin) from the WAC are doing it - ironically, the one year Hawaii didn't schedule multiple BCS games and at least one game @ at BCS team was the year they made the BCS, and it was also the year a non-BCS team was waxed and outclassed - yet somehow Boise alone can only get a game when their coach is friends with the program (Oregon)?

I simply don't buy it. If Boise was willing to go one-off and play on the road they would have no shortage of BCS opponents. If they want to keep going for home and homes, it's going to be much harder, and they're going to have to be the only undefeated non-BCS team to make it, just like the 1-loss BCS team with the best schedule makes it to the title game.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Meanwhile Georgia is definitely regretting their scheduling choices & aren't likely to be making the same mistake in the future (if the comments of CMR are to be taken as having some weight).

They may play one additional game OOC against a BCS conference school (the GT game is a given) but I don't think you'll see them schedule GT + 2 again any time soon.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

What hurts the Big East is right now the perception it is just a one team league. It was WVU and the rest, now it's turning into Cinncy, WVU and the rest. I think there is a lot of doubt with Bill Stewart, but he is recruiting very well at WV. That said, it's going to be an interesting season for the Mountaineers. If they can get some wins and so does Cinncy, then you have two teams people talk about and that's what the Big East needs right now.

I won't disagree here. The Big East has been under the microscope since the ACC defections and every year it seems to get more doubt than any other conference regardless of what happened the previous year.

What the MWC has going for at as far as perception goes is the fact that it isn't in the BCS currently. Outside of when Utah, TCU, and BYU play each other or when they beat a BCS school the media really doesn't give the conference much attention and their losses (personnel-wise) aren't as well known. Most writers know WVU lost Pat White and most of its offensive line, Cincy lost its entire defense, Rutgers lost its QB, both WRs, and has question marks at RB, and Pitt lost Shady McCoy. The voters that don't vote for these teams for those reasons probably have no clue what Utah, TCU, and BYU have returning from last year. On top of that, everyone loves the underdog.

As for WVU, this year and next were going to be down years regardless of who coached the team. RR wiffed badly on a couple classes toward the end of his time at WVU and they're paying for it now. Bill Stewart is going to be doubted whether he wins or not, IMO. However, the man can recruit with the best of them and he has a great staff of recruiters so the team is shaping up to be talented enough to get the BCS no matter who is coaching in 2011. People remember how badly he handled the clock at Colorado last year, but tend to forget that outside of that game the team played well considering they had an entirely new coaching staff (except for DC), new offensive scheme, and a new blocking scheme.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I simply don't buy it. If Boise was willing to go one-off and play on the road they would have no shortage of BCS opponents. If they want to keep going for home and homes, it's going to be much harder, and they're going to have to be the only undefeated non-BCS team to make it, just like the 1-loss BCS team with the best schedule makes it to the title game.

I agree with this. BSU continues to try and get the home and home series because of the revenue it generates. I would like to see them go somewhere like WVU, VT, Pitt, etc., that will give them some more credibility. Of course, I remember when they went to Georgia a few years ago and were just waxed.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Can you explain this please? I will give you the standings right now (mostly as a reference point for all of the teams in these 2 conferences).

Mountain West Conference

Air Force 0-0 1-0
Brigham Young 0-0 1-0
Colorado State 0-0 1-0
UNLV 0-0 1-0
Utah 0-0 1-0
Wyoming 0-0 1-0
TCU 0-0 0-0
New Mexico 0-0 0-1
San Diego State 0-0 0-1

San Diego State and New Mexico are not good. At all. Wyoming and UNLV are not much better. Air Force and Colorado State can at least be competitive. That leaves BYU, Utah, and TCU as the good teams in this conference.

Big East Conference

Cincinnati 1-0 1-0
Connecticut 0-0 1-0
Louisville 0-0 1-0
Pittsburgh 0-0 1-0
South Florida 0-0 1-0
West Virginia 0-0 1-0
Syracuse 0-0 0-1
Rutgers 0-1 0-1


Rutgers, Syracuse, and West Virginia are awful. Connecticut is unproven, as is Louisville. Pitt has an awful coach and usually loses at least 2 games to pathetic teams. South Florida and Cincinnati appear to be the only 2 teams in the Big East that are even decent.

I don't understand how you can state the above with a straight face.

Originally Posted by Atocep

No, you post hyperbole and personal feelings as facts and somehow think this is proof.

You use 1 week as a sample size.

Based on your above feelings I'd guess you believe the BCS auto-bids should be reshuffled every year based on which conferences are up and which are down the previous season.

You somehow think a team that has never cracked the top 3 in the Big East is decent while WVU is awful.

Ok, after looking at some of my statements about teams, it may be a little premature. While WVU is not awful, I still don't think they are very good. USF is not that many years from being at least competitive.

I just think that the Big East is an overrated conference. Perhaps the MWC is overrated too, but if anything, they get little attention outside of the big 2-3 teams (someone else mentioned this as well).

I am not a fan of the MWC or the Big East. I am just curious to see how things turn out. Rutgers will probably end up with 8 wins, I can't see their defense playing that poorly again. I think BSU's defense is better than people realize.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I think Bowling Green and Tulsa are decent teams, and wouldn't be surprised if one of them pulled out a win at home vs. Boise, but the overall point stands.

Agreed, but my main point is neither of those teams really helps Boise much in national prestige - not unless this is a year that Tulsa explodes and their only loss is to Boise.

Getting the home and home with Oregon was a coup for Boise, but the reality is they'll have to be happy with scheduling a lot of one-off away games at BCS powers in order to get prestigious teams on their schedule to offset their weak in-conference schedules.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Meanwhile Georgia is definitely regretting their scheduling choices & aren't likely to be making the same mistake in the future (if the comments of CMR are to be taken as having some weight).

They may play one additional game OOC against a BCS conference school (the GT game is a given) but I don't think you'll see them schedule GT + 2 again any time soon.

They played a top 10 team on the road and acquitted themselves quite nicely, losing by 14 after one questionable penalty on a PR that would have given them a clear shot at tying it at 17 and another bad unnecessary roughness call that gave OK St 1st and goal just before they put the game away. Is Richt complaining because he doesn't want to play a good team on the road week 1, or because they weren't expecting OK St to be this good? Or because OK St doesn't have name value - I suspect if the name on the opposing jerseys was Oklahoma or Ohio State and the result the same he wouldn't be getting as much heat.

MWC vs. Big East

Here are CFN's rankings after week 1.
Big East
9 - BYU
20 - Cincinnati
(21 - Boise St)
23 - WV
24 - TCU
29 - Pitt
39 - Utah
44 - Colorado St.
45 - South Florida
47 - UConn
55 - Rutgers
67 - Louisville
70 - Air Force
71 - Syracuse
79 - UNLV
88 - Wyoming
98 - New Mexico
99 - San Diego St.

So Colorado St. is the forgotten underrated MWC team here and Air Force has a chance to be decent, but the bottom of the MWC is terrible.

[tarcone]

The Sporting News online report has the Mountain West 5th in their conference power polls. Ahead of the Big (L)East.
I think Cincinati is the real deal, beyond that its pretty weak.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Ok, after looking at some of my statements about teams, it may be a little premature. While WVU is not awful, I still don't think they are very good. USF is not that many years from being at least competitive.

USF has recruiting going for it. Same as WVU, Rutgers, and Cincy right now. The Big East as a whole is recruiting much, much, much better than it was when Miami, BC, and Virginia Tech were in the conference.

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I just think that the Big East is an overrated conference. Perhaps the MWC is overrated too, but if anything, they get little attention outside of the big 2-3 teams (someone else mentioned this as well).

Sagarin Ratings:

Big East: '05 - 6th, '06 - 2nd, '07 - 4th, '08 - 5th

Considering the popular opinion is that the Big East should lose its BCS bid I don't see how that could be considered overrated.

Meanwhile

MWC: '05 - 8th, '06 - 7th, '07 - 7th, '08 - 7th

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

They played a top 10 team on the road and acquitted themselves quite nicely, losing by 14 after one questionable penalty on a PR that would have given them a clear shot at tying it at 17 and another bad unnecessary roughness call that gave OK St 1st and goal just before they put the game away. Is Richt complaining because he doesn't want to play a good team on the road week 1, or because they weren't expecting OK St to be this good? Or because OK St doesn't have name value - I suspect if the name on the opposing jerseys was Oklahoma or Ohio State and the result the same he wouldn't be getting as much heat.
Here are CFN's rankings after week 1.
Big East
9 - BYU
20 - Cincinnati
(21 - Boise St)
23 - WV
24 - TCU
29 - Pitt
39 - Utah
44 - Colorado St.
45 - South Florida
47 - UConn
55 - Rutgers
67 - Louisville
70 - Air Force
71 - Syracuse
79 - UNLV
88 - Wyoming
98 - New Mexico
99 - San Diego St.

So Colorado St. is the forgotten underrated MWC team here and Air Force has a chance to be decent, but the bottom of the MWC is terrible.

It appears so. As others have said, one week should not be a sample size I guess, but who knows? I can see the argument for the Big East being slightly better, mostly because of teams like Syracuse and Louisville having some decent seasons in the past and generally having a better recruiting base. San Diego State is horrid, as is New Mexico. I can't remember Wyoming ever being relevant.

Yeah, the MWC has some bad teams. Boise State would help the conference considerably, but I wonder how much the conference would help BSU? Besides playing TCU, BYU, and Utah each year, which may actually hurt all of them in the BCS rankings.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

They played a top 10 team on the road and acquitted themselves quite nicely, losing by 14 after one questionable penalty on a PR that would have given them a clear shot at tying it at 17 and another bad unnecessary roughness call that gave OK St 1st and goal just before they put the game away. Is Richt complaining because he doesn't want to play a good team on the road week 1, or because they weren't expecting OK St to be this good? Or because OK St doesn't have name value - I suspect if the name on the opposing jerseys was Oklahoma or Ohio State and the result the same he wouldn't be getting as much heat.

Mostly it's been (at least as far back as last year, long before Saturday's loss) that there's really no good reason for them to play 3 higher level OOC opponents given their conference schedule. He's commented to that effect frequently for more than a year now, enough so that it's pretty obvious that he's trying to make sure that AD Damon Evans knows (or thinks?) he's got the donors on his side and that it shouldn't happen again.

They definitely didn't expect OkSt to be at the level they were when the game was scheduled and I'd presume that's part of his point. Given how far out schedules are made these days you really don't know what you're getting yourself into by overreaching.

I don't care much for the guy really but I have to admit he's got some great points here. There's just no reason for them to play H&H series with multiple teams like that each year when they can pretty much sell the same number of tickets to see a lower tier bottom feeder and in the long run likely make up any ticket revenue difference just by virtue of sales & contributions by going, say, 10-2 vs 9-3. And their conference slate is typically going to be enough to keep their SOS reasonably secure.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Now, to fix the Big East, one thing is they have to expand. These 5 OOC games are killing them. Obviously they want to maximize revenue by bringing in home games but playing Howard and FIU back to back for example isn't going to cut it.

The Big East would be wise to add UCF and East Carolina, though academics would surely take a hit.

As long as the Big East is an 8 team conference though I just don't see it ever being a huge National power.

I agree with the overall point, but the problem is there just aren't the right teams for expansion to make sense unless a complete miracle happens (like BC or Maryland leaving the ACC). Those teams you mention, along with the alternatives, don't bring anywhere near enough to the table financially to justify slicing the (meager, comparitively) football pie one or two more ways.

There's a lot of questions about whether the BE can survive as is, especially if the Big 10 comes knocking for any of the teams. Louisville really crapped the bed, and everyone outside of WVU and Rutgers traveling poorly in bowl games sure as hell hasn't helped.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Mostly it's been (at least as far back as last year, long before Saturday's loss) that there's really no good reason for them to play 3 higher level OOC opponents given their conference schedule. He's commented to that effect frequently for more than a year now, enough so that it's pretty obvious that he's trying to make sure that AD Damon Evans knows (or thinks?) he's got the donors on his side and that it shouldn't happen again.

They definitely didn't expect OkSt to be at the level they were when the game was scheduled and I'd presume that's part of his point. Given how far out schedules are made these days you really don't know what you're getting yourself into by overreaching.

I don't care much for the guy really but I have to admit he's got some great points here. There's just no reason for them to play H&H series with multiple teams like that each year when they can pretty much sell the same number of tickets to see a lower tier bottom feeder and in the long run likely make up any ticket revenue difference just by virtue of sales & contributions by going, say, 10-2 vs 9-3. And their conference slate is typically going to be enough to keep their SOS reasonably secure.

Disappointing as a neutral fan, but he's probably right on those points.

Originally Posted by Logan

I agree with the overall point, but the problem is there just aren't the right teams for expansion to make sense unless a complete miracle happens (like BC or Maryland leaving the ACC).

Or UMass (and the Boston market) goes 1A to position themselves for the inevitable BE Catholic/football-playing split. Just kidding, we'll never get our act together.

[Logan]

Well Villanova could be a decent option as well, problem is they got started with their program a bit too late for this discussion.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Boise State would help the conference considerably, but I wonder how much the conference would help BSU? Besides playing TCU, BYU, and Utah each year, which may actually hurt all of them in the BCS rankings.

How would that hurt them in the BCS rankings? The more teams on your conference schedule that are good, the higher your strength of schedule. If the MWC had one more good program, that's one more mark in favor of a MWC team that can go undefeated.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by Logan

I agree with the overall point, but the problem is there just aren't the right teams for expansion to make sense unless a complete miracle happens (like BC or Maryland leaving the ACC). Those teams you mention, along with the alternatives, don't bring anywhere near enough to the table financially to justify slicing the (meager, comparitively) football pie one or two more ways.

There's a lot of questions about whether the BE can survive as is, especially if the Big 10 comes knocking for any of the teams. Louisville really crapped the bed, and everyone outside of WVU and Rutgers traveling poorly in bowl games sure as hell hasn't helped.

This is true. Truthfully I'd like to see Rutgers in the Big 10. They have the academics, the fan base is in place, and the team is on an upswing. Plus the Big 10 really wants to get on the East Coast.

That said I have no idea what happens to the rest of the teams.

Would the ACC take on 4 teams? It seems like way too many for football.

Would the SEC try and pounce on WVU and USF?

I think this is a scenario we could see sooner rather then later but I dunno what happens.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

They played a top 10 team on the road and acquitted themselves quite nicely, losing by 14 after one questionable penalty on a PR that would have given them a clear shot at tying it at 17 and another bad unnecessary roughness call that gave OK St 1st and goal just before they put the game away. Is Richt complaining because he doesn't want to play a good team on the road week 1, or because they weren't expecting OK St to be this good? Or because OK St doesn't have name value - I suspect if the name on the opposing jerseys was Oklahoma or Ohio State and the result the same he wouldn't be getting as much heat.
Here are CFN's rankings after week 1.
Big East
9 - BYU
20 - Cincinnati
(21 - Boise St)
23 - WV
24 - TCU
29 - Pitt
39 - Utah
44 - Colorado St.
45 - South Florida
47 - UConn
55 - Rutgers
67 - Louisville
70 - Air Force
71 - Syracuse
79 - UNLV
88 - Wyoming
98 - New Mexico
99 - San Diego St.

So Colorado St. is the forgotten underrated MWC team here and Air Force has a chance to be decent, but the bottom of the MWC is terrible.

It's hard to calculate exactly how much Boise St. would help the MWC. I think the benefit would go beyond just adding a top-20 team. They'd also help bump up everyone else, including the dregs of the league, in any computer ranking (which would influence human rankings) and also in recruiting. It also gives the mediocre conference teams more of a chance at a huge upset that commands national attention.

It seems that when comparing BCS and non-BCS conferences, there's a bigger difference in quality between the bottom teams than the top teams. Which makes sense. If you could somehow put San Diego St in the Pac-10, they'd be a much stronger program very quickly, just because of that association. If the MWC can improve their top, that will help out the bottom in a similar (though less dramatic) way.

[DeToxRox]

I think the only other option for the Big East is to steal PSU away from the Big 10. Not sure the likely hood of that however.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

I think the only other option for the Big East is to steal PSU away from the Big 10. Not sure the likely hood of that however.

Doubtful. The Big Ten isnt just about athletics. It is about sharing research. Academics is very important and I cant see PSU giving that up for a basketball conference. Although, the football team would be undefeated every year.

[ISiddiqui]

Of course there are always Notre Dame rumblings (ND is in the Big East for everything else), but that'll never happen.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Of course there are always Notre Dame rumblings (ND is in the Big East for everything else), but that'll never happen.

Yep. Notre Dame would only join the Big 10 for football on the off chance they decided to want in a conference anyways, since their Chicago Mafia would be in the center of all the action.

[ISiddiqui]

Well that is the problem for ND as well though. Because they seem to really like the Big East for everything else (especially basketball). So it makes it more difficult for them to jump to the B10.

[Logan]

The problem is that former BE commish Tranghese gave ND a ridiculously sweet deal to play in the conference for all the other sports. All it cost ND was us allowing them to take some of our top bowl spots regularly. Yeah, exactly.

FYI...Schiano named Tom Savage the starter today.

[JonInMiddleGA]

BishopMVP -- here's a quote from CMR before the Georgia-Oklahoma State game.

I saw a pregame interview with Richt in which he was asked whether he liked playing such a tough opener. He smiled and said he likes it if Georgia wins.

Richt voiced what he thought of going to Oklahoma State—-one of three games against teams from BCS conferences outside of the SEC on this year’s schedule along with Georgia Tech and Arizona State--at the SEC spring meeting in Destin, Fla.

"I could reduce that a little bit," Richt said. "The league's tough enough as it is."

He later added: “The plan was never to have Oklahoma State and Arizona State and Georgia Tech. That was never the plan. It's been one of those others and Tech and even still I don't think we even have to do that. We did it because we wanted to do it for the fans and to get out of the Southeast region."

No looking back for Evans on scheduling move | Blogs.OnlineAthens.com

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

How would that hurt them in the BCS rankings? The more teams on your conference schedule that are good, the higher your strength of schedule. If the MWC had one more good program, that's one more mark in favor of a MWC team that can go undefeated.

Not being a BCS conference, these teams would theoretically beat each other up during the conference season, with a real chance at none of them getting a BCS bid. This is just my take, I could be wrong though.

[sterlingice]

I give UGA all the credit in the world for this year's non-con schedule. It's so much better than their usual crop of creampuffs.

SI

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

I think Boise would beat BYU, I really do... and I think TCU will beat BYU this year...Im sorry, but beating OU without arguably its two best players isnt nearly as impressive as people are making it out to be. Great win, yes, but it wasnt like they looked as talented(they didnt) and it wasnt like they didnt need a lot of late luck(they did). Boise on the other hand walked up and down the field on Oregon, a team that was supposed to be top 15 this year(which is where an OU team without Bradford and Gresham would fall into as well pre-season)

This is where no one gives BYU credit.

We were down to 2nd and 3rd String players at some spots on our O-Line. Our starting left tackle was our only returner, just like OU and he had his hand in a cast. Our LG just got off his LDS mission this year if I remember correctly because the starter blew his ACL in fall camp. Our Center was brand new to the position and our RG / RT played sparingly last season or 2 seasons ago.

We didn't have our starting HB (One of our Best Players), which is actually quite a bit better than Kariya.

We lost our starting MLB right off the bat to a concussion, oh and that DB, Brian Logan, is 5' 6" and playing with a broken hand as well.

The excuses about OU having a young OL in this game is bullshit...OU got beat by a good team...not a great team but a good team and because freaking Bradford went down people are slapping an asterix on this win.

BYU played this one like it was a bowl game and gave it their all to prove something and it eeked out in a win. OU approached it just like their one player said in a press release I read..."We are faster and can out muscle BYU so we really don't have to worry about them."

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

This is where no one gives BYU credit.

We were down to 2nd and 3rd String players at some spots on our O-Line. Our starting left tackle was our only returner, just like OU and he had his hand in a cast. Our LG just got off his LDS mission this year if I remember correctly because the starter blew his ACL in fall camp. Our Center was brand new to the position and our RG / RT played sparingly last season or 2 seasons ago.

We didn't have our starting HB (One of our Best Players), which is actually quite a bit better than Kariya.

We lost our starting MLB right off the bat to a concussion, oh and that DB, Brian Logan, is 5' 6" and playing with a broken hand as well.

The excuses about OU having a young OL in this game is bullshit...OU got beat by a good team...not a great team but a good team and because freaking Bradford went down people are slapping an asterix on this win.

BYU played this one like it was a bowl game and gave it their all to prove something and it eeked out in a win. OU approached it just like their one player said in a press release I read..."We are faster and can out muscle BYU so we really don't have to worry about them."

They are ranked 9th in the country.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

They are ranked 9th in the country.

You got me there, but I am talking mainly about the Naysayers that it only happened because Bradford was down or their O-Line...To me that is tripe...

Sorry, been dealing with that kind of talk all week with co-workers and the people around here.

[Dr. Sak]

I might be in the minority but I think rankings, especially at this point are shit. They are there for TV to hype up games.

Yah OU was ranked high, so was Oregon, but who's to say how good they really are? It's all based on speculation, so let's wait a few weeks till we see these teams play some more before we get our panties in a bunch.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I give UGA all the credit in the world for this year's non-con schedule. It's so much better than their usual crop of creampuffs.

Yeah, but what does it get 'em? An 0-1 start for the first time since 1996 (when Jim Donnan's edition fell to Southern Miss 11-7 at home) and a discouraged fan base calling for the head of the OC and the QB and it's not even the middle of September. Not to mention a lot more pressure coming into their conference opener, because if they start 2-0 it's going to get ugly in a hurry, not "will CMR make it to the end of the year" ugly but check books are going to suddenly get tighter ugly isn't at all out of the realm of possibility.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

You got me there, but I am talking mainly about the Naysayers that it only happened because Bradford was down or their O-Line...To me that is tripe...

Sorry, been dealing with that kind of talk all week with co-workers and the people around here.

FWIW, I think BYU deserved their win and it was impressive. Even before Bradford was hurt, BYU was outplaying OU.

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

I might be in the minority but I think rankings, especially at this point are shit. They are there for TV to hype up games.

Yah OU was ranked high, so was Oregon, but who's to say how good they really are? It's all based on speculation, so let's wait a few weeks till we see these teams play some more before we get our panties in a bunch.

I agree. I wish they would just stop with the preseason polls already, and wait until around week 3 or so before ranking these teams. That way, we can see who is for real and who isn't.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Not being a BCS conference, these teams would theoretically beat each other up during the conference season, with a real chance at none of them getting a BCS bid. This is just my take, I could be wrong though.

That is true, but if any of those teams want to earn a BCS title game berth, they have to prove themselves. Having more good teams in the MWC would result in people putting more stock in a team that goes undefeated in the MWC.

Going undefeated in the WAC doesn't impress people all that much relatively speaking; going undefeated in the MWC if Boise were added would be more impressive and would boost such a team's BCS standings.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

That is true, but if any of those teams want to earn a BCS title game berth, they have to prove themselves. Having more good teams in the MWC would result in people putting more stock in a team that goes undefeated in the MWC.

Going undefeated in the WAC doesn't impress people all that much relatively speaking; going undefeated in the MWC if Boise were added would be more impressive and would boost such a team's BCS standings.

Good points. I am no fan of the MWC (I like BSU though and what they have accomplished, having lived there for almost 5 years fostered a relative liking for the program), but I like to see the little guys that work hard be rewarded. The MWC, even if BSU joins, will need an automatic BCS bid before they can really be taken seriously.

[molson]

I wonder how content BSU, and even the fan base, is content with the status quo. I mean, this team was 1-AA just 14 years ago, division II just 30 years ago, and at the junior college level until the 60s. Has any college football program advanced that quickly?

Living here, I really don't hear a whole lot of whining about BCS this and that. It's kind of refreshing. Where the rest of big-time college football is in a "win a championship or you're a loser" mentality, it seems like this place likes the uniqueness and even mystique that's been built here. It's probably the most mentally-healthy fanbase I've been around (of course, I'm from the Boston area, and have lived in NYC, so that might not be saying much).

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by molson

I wonder how content BSU, and even the fan base, is content with the status quo. I mean, this team was 1-AA just 14 years ago, division II just 30 years ago, and at the junior college level until the 60s. Has any college football program advanced that quickly?

Living here, I really don't hear a whole lot of whining about BCS this and that. It's kind of refreshing. Where the rest of big-time college football is in a "win a championship or you're a loser" mentality, it seems like this place likes the uniqueness and even mystique that's been built here. It's probably the most mentally-healthy fanbase I've been around (of course, I'm from the Boston area, and have lived in NYC, so that might not be saying much).

Yeah, I loved the environment in Boise. Game day you could see everyone wearing Bronco gear (and I mean everyone, even people you know have never set foot in a college, and it is dubious whether or not they even graduated high school).

It is a very refreshing atmosphere, I already miss it.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

It appears so. As others have said, one week should not be a sample size I guess, but who knows? I can see the argument for the Big East being slightly better, mostly because of teams like Syracuse and Louisville having some decent seasons in the past and generally having a better recruiting base. San Diego State is horrid, as is New Mexico. I can't remember Wyoming ever being relevant.

Yeah, the MWC has some bad teams. Boise State would help the conference considerably, but I wonder how much the conference would help BSU? Besides playing TCU, BYU, and Utah each year, which may actually hurt all of them in the BCS rankings.

Living in MWC country for a bunch of years now and having been to a bunch of conference games, I'd say that the conference isn't that bad. The problem is largely that it's generally remote and its a league that beats up on itself, so it makes it look worse than it is.

I suspect top to bottom the MWC is a much deeper league than the Big East year to year (I say this as a Big East partisan) but because of the lack of big media markets in the conference (and the fact that the Big East is a powerhouse basketball conference) makes it harder to get that message out.

But the Mountain West probably needs to do a better job of getting better bowl tie-ins than the ones it currently has and I'm not sure exactly how they're going to achieve that, but surely there are ways to do so, the real problem is there aren't nearly as many bowls out here, the draws are harder to get and so forth.

As for Wyoming, the last winning season the team had was in 2004 when they beat UCLA in the Las Vegas Bowl. But the years we suffered through Joe Glenn's 1-AA anemic offense and bad recruiting are over now and former Missouri OC Dave Christensen has already pumped more octane into offense. It'll take some time, but the school has always been strong defensive and having watched games for years, they're a lot better on the field than the scores often report.

They'll never be a routine Top 25 team, but they could be just outside the Utah-BYU-TCU pack in the conference and that could be enough to get them into a bowl games, which for fans there is really all they need. It's the smallest state in the country, with the shortest HS football season and while the school isn't the smallest in FBS football, it's such a huge recruiting tool for the state and they invest a lot of money into ensuring they stay Division 1A and there's nothing else in the state that competes with the Pokes -- win or lose -- (and what other school can boast attracting 3-5% of the state population to its football games week in and week out?)

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

This is where no one gives BYU credit.

We were down to 2nd and 3rd String players at some spots on our O-Line. Our starting left tackle was our only returner, just like OU and he had his hand in a cast. Our LG just got off his LDS mission this year if I remember correctly because the starter blew his ACL in fall camp. Our Center was brand new to the position and our RG / RT played sparingly last season or 2 seasons ago.

We didn't have our starting HB (One of our Best Players), which is actually quite a bit better than Kariya.

We lost our starting MLB right off the bat to a concussion, oh and that DB, Brian Logan, is 5' 6" and playing with a broken hand as well.

The excuses about OU having a young OL in this game is bullshit...OU got beat by a good team...not a great team but a good team and because freaking Bradford went down people are slapping an asterix on this win.

BYU played this one like it was a bowl game and gave it their all to prove something and it eeked out in a win. OU approached it just like their one player said in a press release I read..."We are faster and can out muscle BYU so we really don't have to worry about them."

Beat FSU, beat TCU and Utah, and ill clamor for you guys more then most. Im a big fan of the mid majors, I trumpeted Utah to get the national title shot last year and I think some of the mid-majors are very good this year. Unfortunately, and you can dislike it if you like, BYU is not one of the ones I think is great...like I said, it was a good win for a good team, but not an elite one. I dont know what you want me to say, you beat a team that with what it had on the field was prob around the 10-15th best team in the nation(though dont discout, no matter what you want to say, the factor that one team had their star QB to lead them on a 4th qtr comeback, and the other team had a totally unproven redshirt freshman drive them down. And almost make it into the redzone too before that dumb delay of game call on like the 2 yard line, a move you cant tell me bradford would have made). I would rate BYU around the top 15, but I would rate Boise and possibly TCU as 7-10 squads based on what I think would happen if teams played on neutral fields.


Top 15 for a midmajor is hardly not giving you guys credit, so if your asking me to include you with the Floridas of the world, its just not going to happen until you play better competition week in and week out, not just 1-2 a year in non-conference. At the end of the day, I think my team would beat your team, and they just barely cracked the top 25 this week, so if you want to play the disrespect card we can go down hypothetical lane all day long. At the end of the day all im doing is trying to be the voice of reason for people like you who will use this at the end of the year as a key chip in the BCS arguement, and all I tried to say was the OU team you guys beat is not going to be nearly the same OU team other teams will face at the end of the year, and the wins should not be weighted equally in my eyes.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

I might be in the minority but I think rankings, especially at this point are shit. They are there for TV to hype up games.

Yah OU was ranked high, so was Oregon, but who's to say how good they really are? It's all based on speculation, so let's wait a few weeks till we see these teams play some more before we get our panties in a bunch.

Completely agreed. Personally, I don't think there should be any rankings until after 4 or 5 weeks have been played.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Logan

Well Villanova could be a decent option as well, problem is they got started with their program a bit too late for this discussion.

Off the top of my head, private schools in D1A - ND, BC, Duke, Wake, Northwestern, Rice, Temple - and 5 of those are historically among the worst teams in their BCS conference. Considering the capital layout required for a small private school to upgrade to D1, they'd have to have a guarantee they could pull off a UConn transformation and not be another Temple - and there is none. That's why UMass could be a viable option - if the state legislature cared about it and wasn't filled with Boston-area grads - it has a large student body, a lot of grads in driving distance, and an area (the Pioneer Valley) that regards UMass as its college. Not as good as UConn (or a Wyoming) where the entire state supports it, but enough to get 40-50k out. Villanova doesn't have the # of undergrads, alums, or regional support in Philly (split 6 ways with Temple, Drexel, St. Joe's, Lasalle and Penn St.) to do much better than Temple.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Off the top of my head, private schools in D1A - ND, BC, Duke, Wake, Northwestern, Rice, Temple - and 5 of those are historically among the worst teams in their BCS conference. Considering the capital layout required for a small private school to upgrade to D1, they'd have to have a guarantee they could pull off a UConn transformation and not be another Temple - and there is none. That's why UMass could be a viable option - if the state legislature cared about it and wasn't filled with Boston-area grads - it has a large student body, a lot of grads in driving distance, and an area (the Pioneer Valley) that regards UMass as its college. Not as good as UConn (or a Wyoming) where the entire state supports it, but enough to get 40-50k out. Villanova doesn't have the # of undergrads, alums, or regional support in Philly (split 6 ways with Temple, Drexel, St. Joe's, Lasalle and Penn St.) to do much better than Temple.

USC, Miami (FL), and BYU are also private schools (and have all won national titles in the past 25-years, as has Notre Dame). Just pointing it out -- I think your point is largely true. Although, I would guess a school like Harvard or Yale (or a similar school with a ridiculously large endowment and deep pocketed alums) could pump (literally) hundreds of millions of dollars into a football program and get them up to speed in a hurry if they so chose.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Completely agreed. Personally, I don't think there should be any rankings until after 4 or 5 weeks have been played.

That's how the Harris Poll and the Legends Poll work, and I agree with that decision. I wish the BCS standings didn't use any polls that start before the 4th week of the season...

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

USC, Miami (FL), and BYU are also private schools (and have all won national titles in the past 25-years, as has Notre Dame). Just pointing it out -- I think your point is largely true. Although, I would guess a school like Harvard or Yale (or a similar school with a ridiculously large endowment and deep pocketed alums) could pump (literally) hundreds of millions of dollars into a football program and get them up to speed in a hurry if they so chose.

Ouch, missed 3 of the 5 big ones. I blame TCY and not having to change Southern Cal and Miami's names.

Harvard and Yale clearly could, but let's be honest - the goal of going D1 would/(should) be to increase donations, prestige, and applications, and those schools aren't exactly struggling, and would probably have quite a backlash from prominent alums who felt D1 football to be beneath them.