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 III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

bronconick said:
Sagarin's strength of schedule formula needs some tweaking. I'll buy the PAC-10 usually finishes with better than average schedules for playing 9 conference games, and usually playing non-conference games vs. BCS or at least MWC schools.

Someone's going to have to run by Arizona State for me, though. Wisconsin? Sure. 9 Pac-10 games, oh, okay, though you still have UCLA and Washington State in there. There's not one, but two FCS schools on that "7th most difficult schedule in America." Only noticed this from looking through bowl projections and trying to figure out why they're already out.

Right. That ought to be an automatic demotion to about 30th.
Click to expand...

Having Wisconsin, Stanford and Oregon on the schedule may make up for it some Im guessing. They are all currently in the top 5. But yeah I think having FCS teams on your schedule should hurt more than having a bad FBS team that you have to play because they are in your conference.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

bronconick said:
Sagarin's strength of schedule formula needs some tweaking. I'll buy the PAC-10 usually finishes with better than average schedules for playing 9 conference games, and usually playing non-conference games vs. BCS or at least MWC schools.

Someone's going to have to run by Arizona State for me, though. Wisconsin? Sure. 9 Pac-10 games, oh, okay, though you still have UCLA and Washington State in there. There's not one, but two FCS schools on that "7th most difficult schedule in America." Only noticed this from looking through bowl projections and trying to figure out why they're already out.

Right. That ought to be an automatic demotion to about 30th.
Click to expand...
The story behind the two FCS games for ASU is that they had one, the local game against Northern Arizona University, which both they and U of A play regularly. Then, last year, San Jose State bailed out on their nonconference game this season to go play Wisconsin in Madison instead. There was a buyout, but Wisconson was paying so much for San Jose State to come, that it still made more money for San Jose State, even after paying off ASU. And given how late the switch was, ASU couldn't find a non-FCS game to take San Jose State's place.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

jmh said:
There's speculation in the papers today that TCU is going to join the Big East. I guess that makes about as much geographical sense as the "Mountain West" for them.
Click to expand...

Change the name, bring in Texas, Texas Tech, A&M and Oklahoma in the West and Notre Dame in the East, and you have a premier conference. ;)
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

I'd rather see the Big East get left for dead as a football conference than get propped up by TCU.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

Actually, this is a brilliant move by TCU. Prop up the big east (possibly saving it as an AQ) and pave an 8-lane highway straight into the BCS.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

Proud2baLaker said:
Having Wisconsin, Stanford and Oregon on the schedule may make up for it some Im guessing. They are all currently in the top 5. But yeah I think having FCS teams on your schedule should hurt more than having a bad FBS team that you have to play because they are in your conference.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge, Sagarin and others do not distinguish between FCS and FBS, they're all just one big division.

Portland State is indeed horrible, but Northern Arizona (Sagarin BCS rank of 125) is better than several FBS teams (Western Michigan is 126), and even on par with some BCS teams (Vandy is 123).
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

dxmnkd316 said:
Actually, this is a brilliant move by TCU. Prop up the big east (possibly saving it as an AQ) and pave an 8-lane highway straight into the BCS.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm not sure where the numbers are at, but isn't it possible that the Mountain West would have gained AQ status anyways? From the BCS site
Results from the 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 regular seasons will be evaluated to determine whether a seventh conference earns automatic qualification for the 2012-13 and 2013-14 bowl games.
Click to expand...

I'd put the top 5 MWC teams of Boise, TCU, Nevada, Hawaii and Fresno above UConn, Pitt, West Virginia, Syracuse and South Florida easily.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

French Rage said:
If BSU were #4, I believe they would get the autobid, but this time because of the rule where the 3/4 team gets an autobid. (I believe it first applies to the #3 team if they did not get an autobid from other means, and if does not apply there it gets to apply to the #4 seed.)
Click to expand...

Yup. In theory, there are ten reserved automatic bids, if all goes right:
1-6) The six AQ conferences.
7) One team from the five non-AQ conferences who is highest in the BCS standings and higher than 12 (or higher than 16 and an AQ conference winner).
8) Notre Dame if they finish in the top 8.
9-10) #3 and #4 in the BCS standings, if they are not already an automatic qualifier.

RaceBoarder said:
I really think 17-18 teams is way too much for conference... I get the football thing, but why is TCU going in all sports?
Click to expand...

Speculation is that TCU wouldn't have come aboard for football-only. Speculation is also out there that the league will split into a more manageable form, which is why Villanova is on the fence (as opposed to being an outright no) about coming aboard.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

WeWantMore said:
I guess I'm not sure where the numbers are at, but isn't it possible that the Mountain West would have gained AQ status anyways? From the BCS site

I'd put the top 5 MWC teams of Boise, TCU, Nevada, Hawaii and Fresno above UConn, Pitt, West Virginia, Syracuse and South Florida easily.
Click to expand...

For this season, maybe, but they do have to look at the entire period, and they also have to take into consideration the bottom part of the conference. Which this year is...not pretty for the MWC, and I doubt it exceeds the Big East when averaged out.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

blockski said:
To my knowledge, Sagarin and others do not distinguish between FCS and FBS, they're all just one big division.

Portland State is indeed horrible, but Northern Arizona (Sagarin BCS rank of 125) is better than several FBS teams (Western Michigan is 126), and even on par with some BCS teams (Vandy is 123).
Click to expand...
Portland State was the last minute replacement on ASU's schedule when San Jose State bolted.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

Bob Gray said:
Portland State was the last minute replacement on ASU's schedule when San Jose State bolted.
Click to expand...

Having seen a PSU football game, I'm shocked they could even stay on the field with a marginal FBS program.

On the other hand, their soccer team could probably beat anybody west of the Appalachian Mountains.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

WeWantMore said:
I guess I'm not sure where the numbers are at, but isn't it possible that the Mountain West would have gained AQ status anyways? From the BCS site

I'd put the top 5 MWC teams of Boise, TCU, Nevada, Hawaii and Fresno above UConn, Pitt, West Virginia, Syracuse and South Florida easily.
Click to expand...

Utah bolting to the PAC-10 and taking their 2008-09 ranking with them killed the MWC's chances of getting an auto bid.

The Big East taking TCU means they can claim this year's #3 and last year's #4 rather than Connecticut's #28 or whatever when things come up in 2012.

Well done by the BCS conferences to splinter an opponent before they could demand an equal seat at the table.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

bronconick said:
Well done by the BCS conferences to splinter an opponent before they could demand an equal seat at the table.
Click to expand...

I hope you're not suggesting the whole thing is a scam. That would be most upsetting, most upsetting.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

bronconick said:
Utah bolting to the PAC-10 and taking their 2008-09 ranking with them killed the MWC's chances of getting an auto bid.

The Big East taking TCU means they can claim this year's #3 and last year's #4 rather than Connecticut's #28 or whatever when things come up in 2012.

Well done by the BCS conferences to splinter an opponent before they could demand an equal seat at the table.
Click to expand...

Well, depending on what week the snapshot is taken, TCU's contribution to the Big East from 2009 will be either #3 or #6, which is not strictly necessary given that Cincy held #4 and #8 in those same rankings (and had Pittsburgh and WVU in the Top 25 beneath them), but definitely a boost.

This year, with UConn holding serve for the title, and WVU just barely on the inside, the top team may not crack the top 20. TCU will help a great deal with that.

However, the third criterion is overall conference strength in the rankings. The thing with the Big East this season is that, in most of the rankings, the Big East is tightly packed in the middle ranges (although some separation has occurred with the tanking of Cincy's and Rutgers' seasons). The MWC and the WAC, on the other hand, are extremely top heavy, with some profoundly ****ty teams at the bottom (as opposed to the marginally ****ty teams the Big East's low end is sporting). It's those teams that are going to kill any chances those conferences have at getting the BCS bid.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

Kepler said:
I hope you're not suggesting the whole thing is a scam. That would be most upsetting, most upsetting.
Click to expand...

I'm shocked to discover gambling in this establishment.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

Poor Boise. They make a move to the Mountain West which at the time put Utah, TCU, and Boise together to form a pretty legit football conference and then Utah and TCU split leaving Boise in an even worse situation than they were already in the WAC.

Broncos can't catch a break. :(
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

PrezdeJohnson09 said:
Poor Boise. They make a move to the Mountain West which at the time put Utah, TCU, and Boise together to form a pretty legit football conference and then Utah and TCU split leaving Boise in an even worse situation than they were already in the WAC.

Broncos can't catch a break. :(
Click to expand...

They're on the short list for the Pac-16. ;)

(It would actually make perfect sense for them to be with UW, WSU, UO and OSU).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top