College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

[bronconick]

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.

Good God, either Michigan keeps their future non-conference schedules extremely close to the vest, or your former AD has completely dropped the ball, took an early retirement, and you'll be playing 2 FCS schools for the next couple years. I've found the next two years and 3 of 4 games for FSU in 2014 online, Virginia Tech has most of their games in the next 6 years already available, Iowa has a couple showing for the next couple years, OSU has 3 of 4 next year and all 4 in 2013. Wisconsin has next year's and "major" opponents from the Pac-10 and B12 written out until 2016.

Michigan has Notre Dame written down every year, a TBA vs. Western Michigan in 2011, a TBA at UConn in 2013 and nothing else.

Edit: Okay. Next year's UMass, UConn and BG.

 

[Hammer]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

They do keep it pretty tight.

2010: UConn, at Notre Dame, UMass, Bowling Green

 

[mookie1995]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

i just saw that carroll is going to seattle... is tba on suicide watch?

 

[Slap Shot]

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.

That point wasn't cryptic and it was understood. I'm saying I don't buy that as a viable reason for why they don't schedule better opponents. One, Minnesota isn't a bottom feeder even if they're not very good, and would you both come to defense of the the SEC scheduling cupcake after cupcake for citing the same reason? Why would Michigan play Notre Dame and vice versa? Heck, why does Notre Dame traditionally have one of the toughest schedles every year? If a team wanted to improve their schedule they would have already.

 

[blockski]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

That point wasn't cryptic and it was understood. I'm saying I don't buy that as a viable reason for why they don't schedule better opponents. One, Minnesota isn't a bottom feeder even if they're not very good, and would you both come to defense of the the SEC scheduling cupcake after cupcake for citing the same reason? Why would Michigan play Notre Dame and vice versa? Heck, why does Notre Dame traditionally have one of the toughest schedles every year? If a team wanted to improve their schedule they would have already.

No, I don't think you did understand my point.

I'm noting how it's easier to punch at your weight class (Michigan-ND, Texas-OSU, USC-OSU) than it is to try and punch up.

And yes, Minnesota is a bottom feeder amongst BCS teams. That's the whole point - you can put them on the schedule, say you played the Big Ten, and still get a relatively easy win.

I'll go back to Wisconsin playing Fresno - Fresno is probably better than a lot of BCS bottom feeders, but you'll never get much credit for that. Same thing with Michigan losing to Appy St. That team was really quite good, probably a lot better than a whole host of FBS teams.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

There are rumors in flight that Southern Cal suggested some self-imposed sanctions for football, similarly to what they imposed for basketball, and the NCAA told them no (with the implication that it wasn't enough).

 

[bigmrg74]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

There are rumors in flight that Southern Cal suggested some self-imposed sanctions for football, similarly to what they imposed for basketball, and the NCAA told them no (with the implication that it wasn't enough).

What, Did they want to give Fresno State the Death Penalty then??

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

There are rumors in flight that Southern Cal suggested some self-imposed sanctions for football, similarly to what they imposed for basketball, and the NCAA told them no (with the implication that it wasn't enough).

That was from an article from a guy who knows nothing of the sanctions process.

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

i just saw that carroll is going to seattle... is tba on suicide watch?

No. But really, are you trying to be a jack-bag? It's been going on for a couple of days now. First I was horrified, now I'm angry because of the terrible timing and the classlessness in which he is going out.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Not every team in the SEC is Alabama. It's hardly dominant top to bottom. That said, an SEC conference schedule alone is tougher than a WAC schedule, no matter what the OOC games are.

College football is a business, and it's bigger business in the south than anywhere else in the country. Voluntarily scheduling world-beaters OOC might gain you some warm, fuzzy feelings on national sports radio and the sports sections of newspapers in Chicago, but it isn't good business.

I don't see how you can really hold it against the schools.

The way to change the situation isn't to cajole those head coaches and ADs into making worse business decisions. It's to change the incentives that reward current scheduling practices. Or to make scheduling less relevant to the bowl system (or a possible playoff).

It's funny - this dicussion comes up every year after the BCS title game (and dozens of times during the season). Nothing is ever going to change without changing the system of incentives and rewards.

 

[Slap Shot]

No, I don't think you did understand my point.

Yes, I do - I just think it's load of crap.

I'm noting how it's easier to punch at your weight class (Michigan-ND, Texas-OSU, USC-OSU) than it is to try and punch up.

For every team that punches down someone had to punch up, but more importnatly UW has teams in their same weight class across the major conferences and they should be able to land a few UMi-ND or UT-OSU's type games of their own. Like the SEC, they don't want to.

 

[blockski]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Yes, I do - I just think it's load of crap.



For every team that punches down someone had to punch up, but more importnatly UW has teams in their same weight class across the major conferences and they should be able to land a few UMi-ND or UT-OSU's type games of their own. Like the SEC, they don't want to.

Again, I'm not going to defend UW's past few years, but prior to that (Oregon, North Carolina, Arizona) and in the future (Oregon State, Washington State, Arizona State, and Virginia Tech), UW is punching solidly at it's weight class. Then again, I don't expect much out of Gopher Fans when it comes to accuracy regarding UW's football history.

The point is that you can't punch above or below without the blessing of the better school. They have veto authority, essentially.

Also, I don't think you can count rivalry games as scheduling coups, really. Those are easy ones to get done because of the tradition.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

The point is that you can't punch above or below without the blessing of the better school. They have veto authority, essentially.

For the initial contract, yes. But the worse school can also walk away if they find a better payday elsewhere (e.g. ASU's predicament).

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Then again, I don't expect much out of Gopher Fans when it comes to accuracy regarding UW's football history.

Dear Parise, you say that as if UW fans have a patent on sports knowledge and clearly we all know this not to be true.

If UW is upping their schedule in the future then more power to them (and the Big Ten for that matter), but then that flies in the face of your whole argument in the first place doesn't it?

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

And yes, Minnesota is a bottom feeder amongst BCS teams. That's the whole point - you can put them on the schedule, say you played the Big Ten, and still get a relatively easy win.

In fairness to the Minnesota, both Baylor and Iowa State have backed out of games because the Gophers turned out NOT to be the hoped-for bottom feeder. Baylor actually pulled a "no mas," refusing to go to Minneapolis after the Gophers slaughtered them down in Waco.

Of course this actually supports your larger point. If you're not in the desired weight class, the other guys won't play -- even if they have to buy their way out of a contract to dodge the match-up.

As for Wisconsin/Fresno State, it's true that the Badgers didn't get proper credit among the masses for playing Fresno. But it earned points with me. I watched the proceedings with interest, which is more than you can say for most September games.

 

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Again, I'm not going to defend UW's past few years, but prior to that (Oregon, North Carolina, Arizona) and in the future (Oregon State, Washington State, Arizona State, and Virginia Tech), UW is punching solidly at it's weight class. Then again, I don't expect much out of Gopher Fans when it comes to accuracy regarding UW's football history.

Wazzu is basically a mid-major at this point in time and likely won't help any SOS arguments.

 

[blockski]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

For the initial contract, yes. But the worse school can also walk away if they find a better payday elsewhere (e.g. ASU's predicament).

Yes. Wisconsin's been dumped, as well.

Dear Parise, you say that as if UW fans have a patent on sports knowledge and clearly we all know this not to be true.

If UW is upping their schedule in the future then more power to them (and the Big Ten for that matter), but then that flies in the face of your whole argument in the first place doesn't it?

No, my point is that UW has been punching below their weight, and is not getting back up to par.

In fairness to the Minnesota, both Baylor and Iowa State have backed out of games because the Gophers turned out NOT to be the hoped-for bottom feeder. Baylor actually pulled a "no mas," refusing to go to Minneapolis after the Gophers slaughtered them down in Waco.

Of course this actually supports your larger point. If you're not in the desired weight class, the other guys won't play -- even if they have to buy their way out of a contract to dodge the match-up.

As for Wisconsin/Fresno State, it's true that the Badgers didn't get proper credit among the masses for playing Fresno. But it earned points with me. I watched the proceedings with interest, which is more than you can say for most September games.

Yes, that's what I'm getting at.

Wazzu is basically a mid-major at this point in time and likely won't help any SOS arguments.

It's not about SOS, it's about perception of SOS. I have no doubts that Fresno is a better team than Wazzu, but that's not what perception says.

 

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

It's not about SOS, it's about perception of SOS. I have no doubts that Fresno is a better team than Wazzu, but that's not what perception says.

In almost all BCS v. Non-BCS comparisons I agree, but Wazzu has been an absolutely atrocious program for a few years with no signs of pulling out of their tailspin. If this continues for a few more years (when does Wisconsin play them?), they may very well have reached a Duke level of respect where even their conference affiliation doesn't help elevate them above the respect of a mid level WAC team.

 

[Slap Shot]

blocksi, your point was UW couldn't schedule upper level NC games because teams were scared of playing them (why else would you say the only reason UM could schedule quality teams is because they're a cupcake unless it was directly related to UW not having that same luxory?) but now suddenly their NC schedule is improving despite them being the same big scary team they were the past several years. If you're going to again say, "You don't get it" then whatever, you keep moving your bar and I'm bored with this topic.

 

[blockski]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

blocksi, your point was UW couldn't schedule upper level NC games because teams were scared of playing them (why else would you say the only reason UM could schedule quality teams is because they're a cupcake unless it was directly related to UW not having that same luxory?) but now suddenly their NC schedule is improving despite them being the same big scary team they were the past several years. If you're going to again say, "You don't get it" then whatever, you keep moving your bar and I'm bored with this topic.

Scared? I didn't say anything about fear. You're inferring that. I'm talking about money and benefits. Lots of bigger schools feel they should get a 2-for-1 with a school like Wisconsin, and Wisconsin certainly feels it can get a 2-1 with other schools below their weight class.

You're also conflating quality teams with elite ones. Texas, Ohio State, and USC are elite. Anyone in the middle of the pack of a BCS conference, in my mind, is a quality OOC opponent.

That's why I brought up the article (which I wish I could find) about the difficulties of scheduling, getting the return dates, agreeing on TV coverage, money, etc. Teams also need to consider their overall schedule - I know Wisconsin, by virtue of being in the UW-Minny-Iowa triangle of rivals has been stuck with a bye on the last week of the season before, meaning that if you want a mid-season bye week, you essentially need to find a non-conference opponent for late November - good luck making that a marquee name. Point being, there are a lot of moving parts. Wisconsin is kinda stuck in that middle region where they're good enough but still not a 'name' team that will make something happen.

For what it's worth, Wisconsin's had discussions pretty much every year with Notre Dame since Barry's been associated with the program. They've had recent discussions with Texas, too - but that again didn't work out (UW had an open date, but already had a full schedule and didn't want to buy out of one game, which would then put a hole in the schedule later for the return trip, etc).