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 Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

blockski said:
Well, if I'm USC, I'm much more willing to take a trip to Minneapolis than I am to go to Madison. That's the problem with a school like Wisconsin, since they're good enough to be a challenge, but they don't offer the huge spotlight like Texas-Ohio State. Minnesota, on the other hand, is both a BCS opponent and a relative tomato can.
Click to expand...

Wisconsin really hasn't been that good lately. Although I agree MN has been less good.

But Ill take Texas and USC making a visit in the next 5 years. Outdoor stadium for the win!
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Terrierbyassociation said:
Looks like Pete Carroll is going to Seattle to become the Seahawks coach, he wants to take Jeremy Bates with him.

For some reason he's going to be given full personnel control.

Basically everyone loses but Pete Carroll's wallet. :mad: :(
Click to expand...

Lifelong Seahawks fan and Pete Carroll hater. My head just exploded.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

JF_Gophers said:
Wisconsin really hasn't been that good lately. Although I agree MN has been less good.

But Ill take Texas and USC making a visit in the next 5 years. Outdoor stadium for the win!
Click to expand...

38-14 in the last 4 years. But ok.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Back up a minute. We needed more evidence?
 
blockski said:
Well, if I'm USC, I'm much more willing to take a trip to Minneapolis than I am to go to Madison.
Click to expand...

Bull. The same potato can that has played WI close often and didn't wilt against CAL this year. Sorry, don't tell me UW is too good to be considered by the better oppnonets that UM has scheduled. Fact is its the same b.s. scheduling that was done when Barry was the coach and now happens to be the A.D. But hey, Wofford is tough.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Slap Shot said:
Bull. The same potato can that has played WI close often and didn't wilt against CAL this year.
Click to expand...

Those moral victories are really piling up for the Gopher football program. :)

In all seriousness, I think blockski's point was that a game with Minnesota in lieu of Wisconsin is a preferable option for a team that wants to make it look like it plays tough opponents but doesn't. It's an easier win over a BCS conference team, more or less, in most years. In the past 15 years Wisconsin has scored three Rose Bowls, twice while the underdog, and won numerous other bowl games over teams ranked higher than it. If you're trying to win a national title do you really want to unnecessarily tangle with a team like that on the road? Probably not unless you have to.

Also, I have my issues with UW's scheduling, but using UW's allowable game against a FCS team (Wofford) is pretty weak. At least Wisconsin won. After all, they could have perhaps lost to some creampuff like North Dakota State :p
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

XYZ said:
Those moral victories are really piling up for the Gopher football program. :)

In all seriousness, I think blockski's point was that a game with Minnesota in lieu of Wisconsin is a preferable option for a team that wants to make it look like it plays tough opponents but doesn't. It's an easier win over a BCS conference team, more or less, in most years. In the past 15 years Wisconsin has scored three Rose Bowls, twice while the underdog, and won numerous other bowl games over teams ranked higher than it. If you're trying to win a national title do you really want to unnecessarily tangle with a team like that on the road? Probably not unless you have to.

Also, I have my issues with UW's scheduling, but using UW's allowable game against a FCS team (Wofford) is pretty weak. At least Wisconsin won. After all, they could have perhaps lost to some creampuff like North Dakota State :p
Click to expand...
Hey now! the gophers beat SDSU last season! to gain bowl eligability! :rolleyes:
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

blockski said:
Well, if I'm USC, I'm much more willing to take a trip to Minneapolis than I am to go to Madison. That's the problem with a school like Wisconsin, since they're good enough to be a challenge, but they don't offer the huge spotlight like Texas-Ohio State. Minnesota, on the other hand, is both a BCS opponent and a relative tomato can.
Click to expand...
I'd certainly be interested in reading the article you mentioned in the earlier post. If you have a chance to post a link, I'd be much obliged.

But regardless of the content of said article, my feeling is that most schools are able to put together a schedule that serves their self-interest. Minnesota's upgraded schedule appears to be both an attempt to bolster reputation and fill previously empty seats. Wisconsin doesn't have those needs, so it's probably not surprising the NC schedules look different.

The irony for Minnesota is that this year's 6-6 record is being treated by the fanbase as a "same old, same old" result, despite the enhanced schedule. So far that's just routine complaining. But once the novelty of the new stadium has worn off, Gopher fans will vote with their feet. If the the Bank stays full for teams like Cal & Air Force, the new scheduling policy will remain in place. If more NC losses translates into more empty seats, the cupcakes will find their way back onto the schedule.

You're right about teams like OSU & Texas. We don't have more seats to sell, but there are untapped TV sets. One big NC game a year is a reasonable risk to take in return for the payoff. A single NC loss isn't necessarily disabling to our football goals; while a high profile win can mean a nice rankings bump. And either way the dollars flow in.

As for Wisconsin, I do wonder if some amount of opportunity is being lost. Given the relatively barren September TV schedule, I would think a UCLA-Wisconsin game would get very nice ratings. FWIW, I think a Boise State-Wisconsin match-up would get good numbers as well.:)

Food for thought.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Slap Shot said:
Bull. The same potato can that has played WI close often and didn't wilt against CAL this year. Sorry, don't tell me UW is too good to be considered by the better oppnonets that UM has scheduled. Fact is its the same b.s. scheduling that was done when Barry was the coach and now happens to be the A.D. But hey, Wofford is tough.
Click to expand...

Same BS scheduling? I'll fully admit that UW's schedule has been less than ideal in recent years, but over the course of Alvarez's entire tenure, it's been pretty solid. Again, it's not easy for a school like UW to get elite teams to come for a home and home.

XYZ said:
Those moral victories are really piling up for the Gopher football program. :)

In all seriousness, I think blockski's point was that a game with Minnesota in lieu of Wisconsin is a preferable option for a team that wants to make it look like it plays tough opponents but doesn't. It's an easier win over a BCS conference team, more or less, in most years. In the past 15 years Wisconsin has scored three Rose Bowls, twice while the underdog, and won numerous other bowl games over teams ranked higher than it. If you're trying to win a national title do you really want to unnecessarily tangle with a team like that on the road? Probably not unless you have to.

Also, I have my issues with UW's scheduling, but using UW's allowable game against a FCS team (Wofford) is pretty weak. At least Wisconsin won. After all, they could have perhaps lost to some creampuff like North Dakota State :p
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. And Wisconsin has the same mindset as well, with future OOC series with Washington State, Arizona State, Oregon State, and Virginia Tech.

The other thing is that these things are agreed to so far in advance that it's hard to see how good a team actually will be. UW inked a series with Arizona back in the mid 90s when Arizona was really good. By the time the games rolled around in 2001 or so, not so much.

pgb-ohio said:
I'd certainly be interested in reading the article you mentioned in the earlier post. If you have a chance to post a link, I'd be much obliged.

But regardless of the content of said article, my feeling is that most schools are able to put together a schedule that serves their self-interest. Minnesota's upgraded schedule appears to be both an attempt to bolster reputation and fill previously empty seats. Wisconsin doesn't have those needs, so it's probably not surprising the NC schedules look different.

The irony for Minnesota is that this year's 6-6 record is being treated by the fanbase as a "same old, same old" result, despite the enhanced schedule. So far that's just routine complaining. But once the novelty of the new stadium has worn off, Gopher fans will vote with their feet. If the the Bank stays full for teams like Cal & Air Force, the new scheduling policy will remain in place. If more NC losses translates into more empty seats, the cupcakes will find their way back onto the schedule.

You're right about teams like OSU & Texas. We don't have more seats to sell, but there are untapped TV sets. One big NC game a year is a reasonable risk to take in return for the payoff. A single NC loss isn't necessarily disabling to our football goals; while a high profile win can mean a nice rankings bump. And either way the dollars flow in.

As for Wisconsin, I do wonder if some amount of opportunity is being lost. Given the relatively barren September TV schedule, I would think a UCLA-Wisconsin game would get very nice ratings. FWIW, I think a Boise State-Wisconsin match-up would get good numbers as well.:)

Food for thought.
Click to expand...

I've been looking for the article, but the Cap Times and Wisconsin State Journal's website just stinks, so no luck so far.

I agree with everything you say. I think UW does to, as the future schedules do include more OOC BCS teams.

I also think that UW did a good job in playing some very tough non-BCS teams like Fresno State, but there's even less reward for playing a tough game like that than there is for playing a bottom of the barrel BCS team (like Washington State).
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Nebraska a preseason top-10? Not with that offense, and the loss of 1/3 of their defense.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

LynahFan said:
Which must explain why no mediocre quarterbacks have ever won a national championship? You can't seriously be arguing that LSU 2004 was "built around" Matt Mauck (who? I had to look that up) or OU 2001 was built around Josh Heupel or Tennessee 1998 was built around Tee Martin. Those were strong teams with better-than-competent quarterbacks, but they were not built around their quarterbacks by any stretch.

Or even last night - McElroy was 6/11 for 58 yards. I think Alabama would have been just fine without him.
Click to expand...

Yup. QB is an important position in the game, but it is not THE most important position. The most important position is the TEAM itself. I know, that's not a singular position, but that's how team sports works. If individual positions meant everything, we'd be talking racing.

Red Cloud said:
If there's anything tainted about this victory, it's that there are still two undefeated teams and they never got the chance to play each other.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

The Darkness said:
Yes a quarterback is just one part of a team, but in football he is the most important part, just like in hockey your goalie is the most crucial part of your team. Except in football because the season is so short and every game matters backup quarterbacks rarely ever get any significant playing time.
Click to expand...

Wow... nice job contradicting yourself. Going from "just one part of a team" to "the most important part." And saying that the goaltender is the most important part of a hockey team is just daft too. You can have the best goaltender in hockey that year but if you can't defend and can't score, he'll eventually fail. That's the thing about TEAM sports. There are no "most important" positions in a team sport. It's the team or it's a disaster. Just ask the Mets a few years back...or the Cubs every year for the past 102 years... or if you want a success story, look at the Anaheim Ducks or the 1995 Devils or the last Rangers team to win the Stanley Cup. Yeah, they had a few guys here and there but mostly a team of almost nobodies. TEAM is the most important part. Put an individual above all else and your team turns into a suckfest... no... it turns into the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Kepler said:
Everybody outside the BCS conferences should pull out of the NC$$, create a playoff system, and have their champion challenge the BCS champion. :D
Click to expand...

This is the best idea I've heard on a number of fronts, despite the fact that $$$ prevents such a move.

Here's why:

1. ESPN and ABC would be happy because they won't have to sit there and debate why a team they don't give a **** about should be considered.

2. A better chance for ESPN and ABC to give teams they like on air ehm..... well, let's just say they'd like it a lot.

3. Those left out would be able to play for something real and tangible year in and year out.

4. They'd have a more legit champion than the winner of the citi NC bowl because is Alambama the national champion or did they just win the bowl game? Who eliminated Boise? Congrats to the team that never lost until the final polls came out and then they lost without even taking the field!

Until such time that one of the two teams receive a loss for this season, BSU and Alabama are your co-National Champions. That's just how it is. I won't let the Federal Bank of BCS Bull droppings get in the way.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Another fun scheduling situation - when one of your opponents pulls out at the last minute, leaving you scrambling to find a warm body...

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/jeffmetcalfe/71058

But ASU officials also are preparing for the worst-case scenario: that the Sun Devils will have to play two Football Championship Subdivision opponents even though a win over only one can be counted toward bowl eligibility.

ASU opens at home against FCS Northern Arizona on Sept. 4. The Sept. 11 opening occurred because San Jose State dropped ASU for a bigger payday at Wisconsin, where coincidentally ASU plays Sept. 18.

San Jose State paid a $250,000 buyout to make up to twice the $450,000 guarantee it had from ASU.

On several occasions since July, ASU has been close to securing a FBS opponent for Sept. 11 only for something to fall through. Now time is running short especially when it comes to season-ticket renewals and options are virtually exhausted unless a FCS team drops a big-school opponent thereby creating an opening for ASU.

ASU needs another home game because it hosts only four Pac-10 games this year: Oregon, Sept. 25; Washington State, Oct. 30; Stanford, Nov. 13; and UCLA, Nov. 26.
Click to expand...

So now they're scrambling to find a team willing to come play in Tempe on short notice. They need a home game to fill their AD budgets, I'm sure.

Wisconsin's been in this situation, as well - and the only real solution this late in the process is to snag an FCS team.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Something along those lines is what led to the Michigan-Appalachian State game being scheduled in the first place.
 
Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Hammer said:
Something along those lines is what led to the Michigan-Appalachian State game being scheduled in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the combination of the 12 game schedule, the allowance of FCS schools to count more often, and the need for mostly cupcake schedules for the BCS has led to this.

With 12 games, big schools are looking for an extra home game. That means they can't return the favor, thus they need to pay off the other school. The increase to the 12 game season gives the teams being bought more leverage, so they're bailing out of contracts in order to get better ones, which leads to situations where FCS schools are being bought as well.

Now, if we had a playoff, none of this would matter since a non-conference loss against a good team would probably help more than hurt (like it does in basketball where you see all kinds of great OOC matchups between powerhouses), since one loss to a really good team wouldn't eliminate you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top