College Football Week 9 discussion

[Swaggs]

I just always have trouble rationalizing how a team that goes through the season undefeated is not more deserving at a shot at the title than a team that has a loss or two. I know that Oregon only played roughly 10% of the FCS teams and lost to one of them, while Boise St. also played roughly 10% of them and went undefeated. The fact that Boise St. beat them head to head further complicates things.

I guess it comes down to what you think the championship should be about: should it be for the best team or the team that has had the most successful season?

Teams like Iowa, Boise St., TCU, and Cincy are almost certainly not as talented as most of the SEC schools, Texas, Oregon, or USC. But it makes things a lot more muddled when the more talented teams have blemishes on their record.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Matthean

MSU vs. Minnesota isn't even listed on ESPN's scoreboard, but it's 35-31 Minnesota in the 4th.

Minnesota wins 42-34.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

That is kind of silly too (obviously its a flawed system).

In college football, you don't want your conference to be too good, or too bad.

That's the whole point. The system is a joke. It's more WWE than sport.

I just don't like the selective use of the argument about how you can't treat other conferences the same. Mountain West has been better (at least at the top) than half the BCS conferences the last few years. Notre Dame as an independent is treated completely different than other independents.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Teams like Iowa, Boise St., TCU, and Cincy are almost certainly not as talented as most of the SEC schools

As non world beaters that Iowa has looked while being undefeated, I think they have enough talent compared to most of the SEC. There isn't a lot in the SEC outside of Florida, 'Bama, and LSU.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by rowech

Couldn't be because nobody's willing to play them could it?

What utter BS. If Boise were to call up any major BCS school and say "We'll play you at your place whenever you want" he'd have as many games as he wanted.

Teams are unwilling to do home and home deals with Boise, yes. But Boise could have a much better schedule if they were willing to schedule some tough road games.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I just always have trouble rationalizing how a team that goes through the season undefeated is not more deserving at a shot at the title than a team that has a loss or two. I know that Oregon only played roughly 10% of the FCS teams and lost to one of them, while Boise St. also played roughly 10% of them and went undefeated. The fact that Boise St. beat them head to head further complicates things.

I guess it comes down to what you think the championship should be about: should it be for the best team or the team that has had the most successful season?

Teams like Iowa, Boise St., TCU, and Cincy are almost certainly not as talented as most of the SEC schools, Texas, Oregon, or USC. But it makes things a lot more muddled when the more talented teams have blemishes on their record.

Either cut FBS down to a third of it's current size or they need to come up with a system that isn't so fraudulent. No, it won't change anytime in the near future, but...I find the whole thing pretty unenjoyable because it always boils down to people's perceptions about who they think is better and the whole thing is pretty and always has been. Except, the system they put in place that's supposedly better is really worse than the old days when you had a ton of different systems determining who was the champ, we should just go back to that. Split national titles and all.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by molson

If Boise St. is going to go undefeated all the time and not get to BCS Bowls - I wonder if its at all practical for them to go independent in football only.

I'm not sure of the benefits of conference membership when you've clearly outgrown the conference.

If you think it is hard for them to get quality home games now, imagine what it would be like if they didn't get all the "free" home games from in-conference.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

If Boise St. is going to go undefeated all the time and not get to BCS Bowls - I wonder if its at all practical for them to go independent in football only.

I'm not sure of the benefits of conference membership when you've clearly outgrown the conference.

Do they get the same sweet deal that Notre Dame gets? Or do they get stuck with the deal Army and Navy have?

[Galaxy]

I love how the BS system always creates crap. One year, it's that the non-BCS schools can't get into. Now it's they might break the system.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

What utter BS. If Boise were to call up any major BCS school and say "We'll play you at your place whenever you want" he'd have as many games as he wanted.

Teams are unwilling to do home and home deals with Boise, yes. But Boise could have a much better schedule if they were willing to schedule some tough road games.

I don't blame them for not doing it. They're still in the top 10 this way, they keep their integrity and if it's good enough for schools in "major" conferences to play this whole "we're not going on the road to play anyone," they shouldn't have to do it either. I don't hear them complaining, because the situation as it stands now is a lot more lucrative and better for their program's health than going 8-4 against "tough competition" with 3 of those games coming on the road, to silence naysayers who don't think they're deserving.

They're probably not. But...no way the alternative is a win-win for them in the slightly. Well and most schedules are done years in advance, the best thing they could do is cancel out of certain games to get tougher ones, but...again, that doesn't really help their cause except in the eyes of pundits and only if they were to win.

Too many variables. If this was college basketball, we'd see much better matchups in the non-conference for all teams, including more teams willing to play top teams in non-BCS leagues.

[molson]

I live in Boise, I'm a fan, but scheduling Cal-Davis when you know everyone is going to be questioning their schedule was annoying. I lost a lot of my sympathy. And the game didn't even sell out here. A top-5ish program in a state with nothing else going on in sports can't sell out games.

There was the Oregon game, and now everyone's just kind of waiting for the bowl game. Nothing in between is really an event.

Regardless of how much a sham the system is, etc, it feels like the program isn't living up to its potential.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

What utter BS. If Boise were to call up any major BCS school and say "We'll play you at your place whenever you want" he'd have as many games as he wanted.

Teams are unwilling to do home and home deals with Boise, yes. But Boise could have a much better schedule if they were willing to schedule some tough road games.

Unfortunately, these schools have to play home games to appease their students, alumni, and pay their bills. They can't play 8 road games a season.

They were able to find a home and home with one of the best teams in the country and beat them. TCU flew across the country twice to beat two BCS schools on the road.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I live in Boise, I'm a fan, but scheduling Cal-Davis when you know everyone is going to be questioning their schedule was annoying. I lost a lot of my sympathy. And the game didn't even sell out here. A top-5ish program in a state with nothing else going on in sports can't sell out games.

Is it off-putting when a powerhouse like Florida is scheduling Charleston Southern? This is done for financial reasons and is a must in this era unfortunately. Tough for schools like Boise to compete if you throw them at an even stiffer financial disadvantage.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Either cut FBS down to a third of it's current size or they need to come up with a system that isn't so fraudulent. No, it won't change anytime in the near future, but...I find the whole thing pretty unenjoyable because it always boils down to people's perceptions about who they think is better and the whole thing is pretty and always has been. Except, the system they put in place that's supposedly better is really worse than the old days when you had a ton of different systems determining who was the champ, we should just go back to that. Split national titles and all.

They should cut it. Just keep all the teams that get good TV ratings and would draw for bowl games. 50 teams, all of which get bowl invites at the season's end. They can get their money that way and not have to pretend they have a legitimate system in place.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Is it off-putting when a powerhouse like Florida is scheduling Charleston Southern? This is done for financial reasons and is a must in this era unfortunately. Tough for schools like Boise to compete if you throw them at an even stiffer financial disadvantage.

No, because Florida has the in-conference schedule to do what they want in the pre-season.

Like with Syracuse in basketball (I just use them as an example because I'm an alum and follow them). They always have a god awful pre-conference schedule, but that's fine, because the big east is loaded. Gonzaga, on the other hand, knows that they have to score points before the conference schedule starts to get a chance at a top seed.

I don't understand all the ins and outs of the business of college football scheduling - but having your fanbase apathetic in the middle of the season and not being able to sell out your stadium seems like a bad thing.

[Swaggs]

Realistically, I'm guessing the MWC and WAC are just as greedy as everyone else. They could forge somewhat of a scheduling alliance and have their top teams play each other (Utah vs Boise State, TCU or BYU vs Fresno State?) in home/home series if they wanted to beef up their resumes, but they are probably better off keeping their top team undefeated skating on cupcakes and then getting to a BCS bowl for the payday and a shot to knock off someone in an upset.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Realistically, I'm guessing the MWC and WAC are just as greedy as everyone else. They could forge somewhat of a scheduling alliance and have their top teams play each other (Utah vs Boise State, TCU or BYU vs Fresno State?) in home/home series if they wanted to beef up their resumes, but they are probably better off keeping their top team undefeated skating on cupcakes and then getting to a BCS bowl for the payday and a shot to knock off someone in an upset.

Good point, I was thinking about that - a merged MWC/WAC, taking the best from both, would have to be at a level at or close to the Big East/ACC. But would that really increase their chance of a BCS payday - probably not, there would more opportunities for losses.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by molson

No, because Florida has the in-conference schedule to do what they want in the pre-season.

Like with Syracuse in basketball (I just use them as an example because I'm an alum and follow them). They always have a god awful pre-conference schedule, but that's fine, because the big east is loaded. Gonzaga, on the other hand, knows that they have to score points before the conference schedule starts to get a chance at a top seed.

Bad comparison. In basketball, Gonzaga wins their league and they get into the post-season. They know that going in, so they play tough games during the OOC period to toughen themselves.

If Boise State loses to ANYONE, they're done. Period. No second chances, no consideration. They won't even get into a BCS game if they lose once. In any season. They only reason they get respect now, is because they built their reputation up in a big BCS win when they had a chance.

And for a program like that, it's feast or famine. Not just for the money, but for potential recruits they poach from the big programs and so forth. They're starting at a disadvantage and so, they can't operate like a major program when they don't have the resources, conference alliances or ties that a major program does, especially play in a market that's never going to generate much interest for them.

They have less margin for error and so, I can't blame them for doing what they're doing and I haven't heard them complain about not getting into the title game, as I'm sure they're fine with things as they are. I mean, to be where they are now after being in 1-AA less than 15 years ago is just insane by any standard.

Schools like Western Kentucky which leverage money they don't have for a chance at the big time look at Boise State and dream of people saying the schools name that much on television for that many years.

It's just fans who don't like the system and debate these things. I doubt they care one way or another, because financially they're getting a much better deal now that they'd probably get otherwise.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

No, because Florida has the in-conference schedule to do what they want in the pre-season.

Like with Syracuse in basketball (I just use them as an example because I'm an alum and follow them). They always have a god awful pre-conference schedule, but that's fine, because the big east is loaded. Gonzaga, on the other hand, knows that they have to score points before the conference schedule starts to get a chance at a top seed.

I don't understand all the ins and outs of the business of college football scheduling - but having your fanbase apathetic in the middle of the season and not being able to sell out your stadium seems like a bad thing.

Big difference in sports. Gonzaga is eligible to play for a championship, Boise State is not. If Gonzaga goes undefeated, it doesn't matter what their out of conference schedule is.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Big difference in sports. Gonzaga is eligible to play for a championship, Boise State is not. If Gonzaga goes undefeated, it doesn't matter what their out of conference schedule is.

If there's an 8-team playoff, Boise still can't afford a single loss.

16-teams - maybe they could lose, as long as it wasn't a huge upset. But with 16 teams, there's zero incentive to play anyone out of conference, so I don't know if that's a great idea either (not to mention that that system would also give a huge unfair advantage to teams from weak conferences).

I kind of like the chaos of the old system. It's not really compatible though, with the rise of the conferences. It's just a different mindset today. I wonder how the media covered undefeated lowerish level teams in 60s and 70s that weren't going to finish #1 in the polls. Was it considered some kind of travesty? Or were they just excited to go to a bowl game?

But that's besides the point - I'm just annoyed they played Cal-Davis. But, they've chosen their path, and have their reasons for it.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by molson

Good point, I was thinking about that - a merged MWC/WAC, taking the best from both, would have to be at a level at or close to the Big East/ACC. But would that really increase their chance of a BCS payday - probably not, there would more opportunities for losses.

I think if they tried to recreate the WAC again (superconference, etc.) that the only thing they could hope for us the BCS to add another bid for that league and perhaps another bowl game as a result.

But that'd be the best thing they'd hope for. Too many mouths to feed though in a league that big, unless they separated the wheat from the chaff and made it a 12-team league.

Boise State
Utah
BYU
New Mexico
TCU
Colorado State
Wyoming
Air Force
Hawaii
Nevada
Fresno State
San Diego State

Hmm..maybe I should fire up NCAA 10 and try this league out. I don't think it'd be more interesting, but if there was a BCS bid up for grabs, you'd think they could do some poaching to graft together a league that was somewhat interesting? (I'm thinking schools from C-USA West like Houston & Rice. Or maybe Tulsa instead of Rice.)

Because this league is media market hell.

[Swaggs]

I think, if you are going for the 7th BCS spot w/ a new conference, you'd be wise to pull in some of the Texas schools from CUSA.

I'd probably shoot for something like this:

Boise St.
Idaho
Utah
BYU
TCU
Air Force
Colorado State
Houston
UTEP
Rice
SMU
Tulsa

That gives you a big footprint into Texas and gives you some access to all of their recruits. It would also give the conference a nice footprint, with teams in continuous states from Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas.

[Swaggs]

Big East fans have a bit of a dillemma on their hands.

Notre Dame, if they are not selected for a BCS game, can take the Gator Bowl (and its $2.25 miillion payout) away from the Big East this season if they are within 2-wins of any non-BCS playing Big East team. If that happens, the second place (or second selection from the BE) BE team would slide down to the Meineke Car Care Bowl (and its ~$1M payout), with everyone else pushed down the bowl list. Basically, the Big East's second biggest payout is taken away from the league.

So, do Big East fans root for Notre Dame to win out and make the BCS? That would mean rooting against UConn and Pittsburgh when they play Notre Dame, but keeping the Gator Bowl and its payout in the conference.

Or, do we hope that UConn and Pitt both beat Notre Dame and that the #2 team finishes with better than a 10-2 record? Under this scenario, Notre Dame could finish no better than 8-4. That would mean that Pitt would have to win out, making them BE champions at 11-1 and hoping that Cincy's only loss would be to Pitt, which would make Cincy 11-1, also.

Pretty strange setup.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

If there's an 8-team playoff, Boise still can't afford a single loss.

That's fine, at least they are eligible to win a championship. The current system does not allow them a shot to prove they are the best team.

[digamma]

I think this is the first time USC has lost by more than a touchdown since 2002.

Next longest streak is Utah, back to 2007 (they beat Texas by a week).

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's fine, at least they are eligible to win a championship. The current system does not allow them a shot to prove they are the best team.

If the goal is for every team to have a chance at a championship if they go undefeated, then they definitely have to reduce the number of teams in Division 1-A. There'd be a serious race to the bottom, the Sun Belt teams would be in serious demand for scheduling purposes.

And the Sun Belt would be the best conference to be in. Troy could conceivably go undefeated if they softened their out-of-conference schedule. Would it really be fair to put them in a 8- or even 16-team tournament?

And of course, Boise St would be in a particularly great position, being in a weak conference.

Meanwhile, the strong conferences would be at a huge disadvantage. You can be a very strong team in the SEC and lose a couple of games.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

If the goal is for every team to have a chance at a championship if they go undefeated, then they definitely have to reduce the number of teams in Division 1-A. There'd be a serious race to the bottom, the Sun Belt teams would be in serious demand for scheduling purposes.

And the Sun Belt would be the best conference to be in. Troy could conceivably go undefeated if they softened their out-of-conference schedule. Would it really be fair to put them in a 8- or even 16-team tournament?

And of course, Boise St would be in a particularly great position, being in a weak conference.

Meanwhile, the strong conferences would be at a huge disadvantage. You can be a very strong team in the SEC and lose a couple of games.

I'm not sure how it changes much. Currently if you're in a BCS conference, an undefeated season gives you a great shot at being in the championship game.

A playoff solves the problem. Would allow those strong teams in power conferences to get in with a loss or two while allowing smaller conference schools who go undefeated to get in (if they meet some criteria).

Basically you crown your champion on the field like every other sport.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm not sure how it changes much. Currently if you're in a BCS conference, an undefeated season gives you a great shot at being in the championship game.

A playoff solves the problem. Would allow those strong teams in power conferences to get in with a loss or two while allowing smaller conference schools who go undefeated to get in (if they meet some criteria).

Basically you crown your champion on the field like every other sport.

It might work if your entire schedule was determined for you, and the conferences were re-aligned by the NCAA to ensure parity.

Imagine an NFL where where you scheduled opponents yourself, and some teams got to play 90% of their schedule against the worst teams every year. Everyone would think that was unfair.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

It might work if your entire schedule was determined for you, and the conferences were re-aligned by the NCAA to ensure parity.

Imagine an NFL where where you scheduled opponents yourself, and some teams got to play 90% of their schedule against the worst teams every year. Everyone would think that was unfair.

The NFL schedule is unbalanced already and there are teams who have easy schedules.

FCS, D2, and D3 have no problems figuring this system out.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The NFL schedule is unbalanced already and there are teams who have easy schedules.

FCS, D2, and D3 have no problems figuring this system out.

The disparity of schedules (and teams) in the NFL isn't anything close to what it is in college.

And maybe a lower division style playoff system could work, but obviously those systems have zero scrutiny attached to them now. I have doubts about how it all would mesh in division I-A, where you have the BCS/non-BCS conference disparity. I just think it would be incredibly unfair to reward teams for being in crappy conferences. (In a season like this, you could have Troy getting in over USC - no thanks)

But kick those teams out, and a BCS-school only playoff (maybe add a 7th bcs WAC/MWC merged conference) could work.

Imagine how difficult the NCAA basketball tournament would be to put together if you could only put in, at a maximum, 16 teams. The small conferences just wouldn't have the same access. Even if you kicked a lot of the lower conferences out, if you have 16 teams, its only going to be the major conferences and schools. I mean, you're not going to have the Patriot League Champion in over a top-10 North Carolina team that lost its conference championship game.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by digamma

I think this is the first time USC has lost by more than a touchdown since 2002.

Next longest streak is Utah, back to 2007 (they beat Texas by a week).

It is. It's also the first time Pete has ever lost at USC by more than 11 points which happened once in his first year in 2001.

[Young Drachma]

FBS would learn a lot from D3 in terms of its disparities. You have D3 schools that are behemoths who use sports as a way to pad their tuition revenue and schools playing for the love of the game. All in the same league, playing for the same titles, etc. The conferences are generally split to where they're all in the same boats, but, even that's changed over the years as schools shift their focuses.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Teams like Iowa, Boise St., TCU, and Cincy are almost certainly not as talented as most of the SEC schools, Texas, Oregon, or USC. But it makes things a lot more muddled when the more talented teams have blemishes on their record.

We have many NFL prospects. Do we have 5 star players? No. But we have many players that fit the system to tee.

[molson]

Originally Posted by molson

The disparity of schedules (and teams) in the NFL isn't anything close to what it is in college.

And maybe a lower division style playoff system could work, but obviously those systems have zero scrutiny attached to them now. I have doubts about how it all would mesh in division I-A, where you have the BCS/non-BCS conference disparity. I just think it would be incredibly unfair to reward teams for being in crappy conferences. (In a season like this, you could have Troy getting in over USC - no thanks)

But kick those teams out, and a BCS-school only playoff (maybe add a 7th bcs WAC/MWC merged conference) could work.

Imagine how difficult the NCAA basketball tournament would be to put together if you could only put in, at a maximum, 16 teams. The small conferences just wouldn't have the same access. Even if you kicked a lot of the lower conferences out, if you have 16 teams, its only going to be the major conferences and schools. I mean, you're not going to have the Patriot League Champion in over a top-10 North Carolina team that lost its conference championship game.

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

FBS would learn a lot from D3 in terms of its disparities. You have D3 schools that are behemoths who use sports as a way to pad their tuition revenue and schools playing for the love of the game. All in the same league, playing for the same titles, etc. The conferences are generally split to where they're all in the same boats, but, even that's changed over the years as schools shift their focuses.

But only some D3 conferences get automatic bids to the playoffs. In that way, its not any different than the BCS. Some conferences have greater access than others.

Of course, with 32 teams, you're not going to have many glaring omissions, but I-A certainly isn't going to have a 32-team playoff.

[Eaglesfan27]

A few other quick facts about USC's loss:

- Pete had gone 103 games without a double digit loss.

- This was the biggest margin of defeat since 1997.

- Oregon's 613 yards of total offense was the most USC has given up since 1946 against ND. It was the 2nd most ever given up in their history.

- USC allowed 391 yards rushing. That was the most they have allowed since they were beat by Texas A&M in 1977.

- It was the first time USC allowed 2 100 yard rushers in a game since they played Kansas State in 2001.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

A few other quick facts about USC's loss:

- Pete had gone 103 games without a double digit loss.

- This was the biggest margin of defeat since 1997.

- Oregon's 613 yards of total offense was the most USC has given up since 1946 against ND. It was the 2nd most ever given up in their history.

- USC allowed 391 yards rushing. That was the most they have allowed since they were beat by Texas A&M in 1977.

- It was the first time USC allowed 2 100 yard rushers in a game since they played Kansas State in 2001.

It's why I view it like the OU/TT game last year where OU smoked TT so badly. If you play that game 10 times, that score won't happen again even if OU would have won most of the games. I think it's partly why scoring difference has lost weight in terms of rankings.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

A few other quick facts about USC's loss:

- Pete had gone 103 games without a double digit loss.

- This was the biggest margin of defeat since 1997.

- Oregon's 613 yards of total offense was the most USC has given up since 1946 against ND. It was the 2nd most ever given up in their history.

- USC allowed 391 yards rushing. That was the most they have allowed since they were beat by Texas A&M in 1977.

- It was the first time USC allowed 2 100 yard rushers in a game since they played Kansas State in 2001.

I've wondered if we're going to look back at the Sanchez declaration press conference as some kind of turning point for SC. Sanchez succeeds in the pros, Carrill ends up looking petty and silly. His team then loses to a conference rival who hadn't won a single game the previous year and one that is also coached by one of his former assistants. They then lose another game by the biggest margin in over a decade. It's obviously too early to tell, but there was something strange about that day....

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I've wondered if we're going to look back at the Sanchez declaration press conference as some kind of turning point for SC. Sanchez succeeds in the pros, Carrill ends up looking petty and silly. His team then loses to a conference rival who hadn't won a single game the previous year and one that is also coached by one of his former assistants. They then lose another game by the biggest margin in over a decade. It's obviously too early to tell, but there was something strange about that day....

I don't think there's something strange. USC lost too many starters to be as good as they were last year. For a team that has so many first year starters and a true freshman QB they're doing well, we just expect them to be a national title contender every year and that's unrealistic.

[miami_fan]

All this debate about Boise vs. Oregon, what about Oregon vs. Iowa? Both teams are in BCS conferences. Iowa is undefeated while playing in the Big Ten. They have beaten one team that is currently ranked, with the opportunity to beat another ranked team in a few weeks. Oregon is undefeated in the Pac 10 but have a loss on their resume. Depending on who you talked to, that loss is a quality loss against a very good and undefeated Boise State team. OR. It is a less than quality loss against a team who is okay but really can't compete with the big boys in the BCS. It seems to me that how you judge Boise State would affect how you compare Oregon and Iowa. The comparison between Iowa and Oregon seems much more compelling IMO. We seen the Boises and the Utahs of the world go undefeated and not get a shot at the title time and time again. Are we really going to see another BCS conference champion go undefeated and not have a shot at the title?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't think there's something strange. USC lost too many starters to be as good as they were last year. For a team that has so many first year starters and a true freshman QB they're doing well, we just expect them to be a national title contender every year and that's unrealistic.

I agree. And don't forget the UW loss was without Barkley in a very hostile environment and UW still needed the perfect storm to win. I currently attend UW so I obviously don't want to take anything away from them, but they needed everything to go right that day.

[MrBug708]

So does Pete Carroll realize that hiring a glorified recruiter to be his DC probably wasn't the greatest idea in the world?

And I love watching Pete Carroll slinking away from the winning coach. Such a condescending ass. Chip Kelly had to practically grab him to keep him from running off

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't think there's something strange. USC lost too many starters to be as good as they were last year. For a team that has so many first year starters and a true freshman QB they're doing well, we just expect them to be a national title contender every year and that's unrealistic.

Exactly. They just need the young players to mature/develop and they'll be back in the mix next year.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Exactly. They just need the young players to mature/develop and they'll be back in the mix next year.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. From the start, I thought USC wouldn't be as dominant this year, with the losses they had on defense, and that was before I found out Carroll was going to go with Barkley boom or bust. They'll be fine in the long run; too much talent there not to.

As an anti-USC fan, of course, it's nice to see a year with a little comeback for once.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Thinking...

1. Florida
2. Texas
3. 'Bama
4. Cinci
5. BSU
6. TCU
7. Oregon
8. Iowa
9. LSU
10. PSU

with 'Bama vs. LSU next week.

I got all, but number ten and I flip flopped on the idea of PSU jumping GT. This all being the AP poll mind you.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Unfortunately, these schools have to play home games to appease their students, alumni, and pay their bills. They can't play 8 road games a season.

They were able to find a home and home with one of the best teams in the country and beat them. TCU flew across the country twice to beat two BCS schools on the road.

Boise had 5 OOC games this season. They had 4 road games and 4 home games in their in-conference schedule. You're telling me they couldn't schedule 2 road games against good OOC teams? Seriously?

Fact is, Boise plays in a weak conference, one of the weakest in FBS. And until that changes, they need to play tough OOC games if they want the possibility of getting into a BCS title game, or they need to get themselves added to the MWC. That's the only fair way to go.

As Dark Cloud notes, it's really some fans that are getting all up in arms at the possibility that Boise wouldn't get serious consideration for a BCS title game if they go undefeated. The school itself knows what they're doing.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's fine, at least they are eligible to win a championship. The current system does not allow them a shot to prove they are the best team.

Sure it does - they just need to schedule better to overcome their weak in-conference slate. You think if Boise had scheduled games at Texas and at Alabama this year and won them they wouldn't be #1 in the polls and would be a lock to get into the BCS title game?

[Young Drachma]

Other than prestige, there's no real financial incentive to overscheduling to get into the title game. The payouts for the BCS bowls is the same as the championship game. Since the MWC and WAC all get fed when one of them makes a BCS game, having them atop the standings as bracket busters and possibly getting two teams in (one each) is a better proposition than cannibalizing and beat up on each other for the off-chance that they MIGHT make the title game, to claim national title superiority.

I don't think a national title would really improve recruiting for a Utah or a Boise State. They're not places that many 18-22 year olds are willing to go, when perennial contenders are wooing and can't offer what many of those places do.

The schools know this. So...while they can feign terror in the media and the folks in Utah are particularly brazen about enlisting their Senators to raise hell for them in D.C. (and fair fight, I say. They know it won't go anywhere, but if you're trying to negotiate a better deal with a bunch of thugs, I'd hire henchmen when I could too...especially when they're freelancing.) the bottom line is, the financial incentives as they stand right now are better playing weak schedules with a shot to guilt trip voters into putting them into the Top 14 than playing a schedule and "earning" their way there.

When I looked at the payouts, I was wondering what the difference between a BCS game and the title game were, so seeing there was no difference in payout told me everything I needed to know about the reasons those leagues keep up the status quo. I don't think it's anymore of a sham than the monopoly the big leagues have on the process though, so it's just everyone trying to get an edge on everyone else.

[digamma]

But DC, the facts don't really match your model. Every non-BCS conference team who has made the BCS has a regular season win over a BCS team during the regular season. They're following the general non-conference schedule model (and college application model): reach game, couple of decent games you should win and a cupcake.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Texas/Oklahoma State is on ABC. The ABC/ESPN coverage map says I'm supposed to get USC/Oregon on ESPN 2.

That always happens to me with these dual games. I get the ABC one in HD, but the game on ESPN2 is only available in regular definition and they show ESPNEWS on the HD. Maybe it has something to do with both officially being on ABC and one channel only getting so much bandwidth and not being able to send 2 HD signals - I remember something similar in the NFL a couple years ago. But it's definitely happened every week, so it's not you or a coincidence.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Is it off-putting when a powerhouse like Florida is scheduling Charleston Southern? This is done for financial reasons and is a must in this era unfortunately.

How was Florida scheduling Charleston Southern done for financial reasons? A game against any higher-profile opponent would bring more fans and more attention/publicity. IMO, it's annoying for Florida to schedule cupcakes, but it's not being done for their financial benefit.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Sure it does - they just need to schedule better to overcome their weak in-conference slate. You think if Boise had scheduled games at Texas and at Alabama this year and won them they wouldn't be #1 in the polls and would be a lock to get into the BCS title game?

Despite numerous non-BCS teams going undefeated, not one has come remotely close to the title game. You can pretend that they have a shot, but it's just talk. The system was built so that those teams could not make a championship game.

As for scheduling Texas and Alabama, it's easier said than done. There are only so many of those teams out there and a lot of teams wanting to play them.