What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Stupid question: could they make results strongly "asymmetric":

Beat a weak team: no benefit
Lose to a strong team: no penalty
Beat a strong team: huge reward
Lose to a weak team: huge penalty

Then you would have strong teams falling over each other scheduling inter-sectional matches against each other -- no risk, huge reward.
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Priceless said:
That's the idea...
Click to expand...

I'm sure it is. And Wetzel makes the case well. I'm not disagreeing with him.

But I'm not wasting time worrying about how to reform the BCS. The solution isn't to improve scheduling practices. There are too many aspiring teams and too few established ones. The only sustainable solution is a playoff.

I'll start playing the critic once again when that conversation inevitably rolls around.
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Kepler said:
Stupid question: could they make results strongly "asymmetric":

Beat a weak team: no benefit
Lose to a strong team: no penalty
Beat a strong team: huge reward
Lose to a weak team: huge penalty

Then you would have strong teams falling over each other scheduling inter-sectional matches against each other -- no risk, huge reward.
Click to expand...

It used to be called "Strength of Schedule" but that's no longer part of the BC$ formula.

It doesn't take into account if a team has a bad year. Utah scheduled Michigan expecting that win to mean something...the Utes didn't figure on them going 3-9...
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Kepler said:
Stupid question: could they make results strongly "asymmetric":

Beat a weak team: no benefit
Lose to a strong team: no penalty
Beat a strong team: huge reward
Lose to a weak team: huge penalty

Then you would have strong teams falling over each other scheduling inter-sectional matches against each other -- no risk, huge reward.
Click to expand...

the problem is that the computers already do that... you'd have to directly penalize playing weak teams from the outset and there's no clean way to do it.

along the lines of priceless (although he's wrong... you can't do it for the whole field) you would have to institute an OOC SOS rule. I-AA games don't count and all other games are a straight SOS for those non-conf games.
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Priceless said:
None of the SEC power house teams want to play TCU because they might actually lose. Better to play a small-conference also-ran or a Division I-AA team and impress those voters than actually play football against someone good.
Click to expand...
As opposed to the B12, B11, and P10 powers who are falling all over themselves trying to schedule TCU?
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

LynahFan said:
As opposed to the B12, B11, and P10 powers who are falling all over themselves trying to schedule TCU?
Click to expand...

Don't make me revisit the Pac Ten's nonconference scheduling prowess again.

Well, ok, I will. Amongst 30 nonconference games this season, the Pac played Boise State, Purdue, Utah, Iowa, Wake Forest, Notre Dame (four times), Ohio State, Cincinnati, Maryland, Minnesota, Georgia, LSU, Tennessee, and Kansas State. After all, Boise State, the biggest non-Pac power in the west in recent years, has had a nonconference game with the Pac for at least the last 7 years running.

Not to mention, Stanford played TCU last year.
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Bob Gray said:
Not to mention, Stanford played TCU last year.
Click to expand...
And so did OU (x2), Texas, Texas Tech, and Baylor in 2005-2008, but those were probably just examples of those schools trying to avoiding scheduling a team from a BCS conference, right? :rolleyes:
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

LynahFan said:
And so did OU (x2), Texas, Texas Tech, and Baylor in 2005-2008, but those were probably just examples of those schools trying to avoiding scheduling a team from a BCS conference, right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
:confused:

I said nothing about the Big 12. Just pointing out that saying the Pac avoids tough nonconference games, against either BCS or non-BCS conferences is simply not true.
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Bob Gray said:
:confused:

I said nothing about the Big 12. Just pointing out that saying the Pac avoids tough nonconference games, against either BCS or non-BCS conferences is simply not true.
Click to expand...
Who said that?

Priceless pointed out that the SEC didn't want to play TCU. I said that nobody else did either, but I was actually wrong. The B12 has a pretty good record of throwing TCU some bones - much better than the Pac 10, in fact.
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

LynahFan said:
Who said that?

Priceless pointed out that the SEC didn't want to play TCU. I said that nobody else did either, but I was actually wrong. The B12 has a pretty good record of throwing TCU some bones - much better than the Pac 10, in fact.
Click to expand...
Glad to see you've recognized that the Pac isn't ducking teams like TCU. ( I assumed when you said P10 in your previous post, that meant the Pac Ten. If it was referring to someone else, I withdraw my comments)

Part of the scheduling is simply that TCU is a Texas team, and thus in B12 country, and more likely to play teams from the area. Just like Boise State, to an even greater degree, regularly schedules with the Pac, because it's in Pac country. Plus, of course the Pac has one less nonconference game to throw around, given their 9-game conference schedule, so, they are 1/4 less available by definition.
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

LynahFan said:
And so did OU (x2), Texas, Texas Tech, and Baylor in 2005-2008, but those were probably just examples of those schools trying to avoiding scheduling a team from a BCS conference, right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

But does Baylor really count?

I watch them play every week and I have no idea how Gtech is number 7 the BCS. Yeah, the running attack is awesome - the triple option is fun when it works - but they can't consistently pass the ball and the defense disappears at inopportune times. And they play in the ACC which is notable for being better than the Big East. Not sure if that's an accomplishment...
 
Last edited:
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Bob Gray said:
Glad to see you've recognized that the Pac isn't ducking teams like TCU. ( I assumed when you said P10 in your previous post, that meant the Pac Ten. If it was referring to someone else, I withdraw my comments)
Click to expand...
I did mean Pac-10. And we weren't talking about ducking teams "like" TCU. We were talking specifically about scheduling TCU. In the last 5 seasons, the Big 12 has done it 6 times, and the Pac 10 twice (Stanford x2).
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Bob Gray said:
Part of the scheduling is simply that TCU is a Texas team, and thus in B12 country, and more likely to play teams from the area. Just like Boise State, to an even greater degree, regularly schedules with the Pac, because it's in Pac country. Plus, of course the Pac has one less nonconference game to throw around, given their 9-game conference schedule, so, they are 1/4 less available by definition.
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding!
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

LynahFan said:
Almost as much as Stanford...
Click to expand...
You mean the Baylor team that has averaged less than three wins a season over the last decade or so?

Compared to the Stanford program that went to the Rose Bowl in 2000, and has beaten USC last season and Oregon last week, among other big wins? Not much of a comparison.

You really don't like the Pac, do you?
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

LynahFan said:
As opposed to the B12, B11, and P10 powers who are falling all over themselves trying to schedule TCU?
Click to expand...

No one is going to play them, or Boise State. And I used the SEC as an example because apparently scheduling games @Virginia and @Clemson wasn't good enough.
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

Priceless said:
No one is going to play them, or Boise State. And I used the SEC as an example because apparently scheduling games @Virginia and @Clemson wasn't good enough.
Click to expand...

I don't want to sound unreasonable -- but if the goal is to demonstrate that you've faced competition at the same level as the BCS conference regulars, it *isn't* good enough. It isn't even close.

But it doesn't even matter, anyway. Attacking scheduling practices is fighting the symptom. The only cure is to replace the current BCS selection system.

There are only so many Floridas, USCs, Alabamas, Texas-es, etc. Even if we could shame them into scheduling TCU, BSU, and Utah each year, where does that leave the rest of the non-BCS world? It seems to me that we haven't erased the line between the haves and the have-nots in college football. We've just arbitrarily shifted it a little bit.

$.02
 
Re: College Footbal 2009: Anybody want to be in the Top 5?

USC already plays a tough OOC schedule: and with the obvious bias against the Pac-10...they wouldn't get any positive points for scheduling Boise State.

That said, they should schedule Boise State anyways.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top