Post-season Play-offs

[Spence]

Spence I think that's a fairly unsubstantiated claim, at best. I think how you do in your conferece is the 'best' way to size your team up, competitively-speaking.
First of all, those teams play each other every year, so there is less 'doubt' as far as how good they are. Secondly, how often do teams play against 'non-conference' teams. There are the occasional 'regulars, I think Miami, OH and Cincinnati play every year. W. Virgnia and Virginia Tech likely square off every year, so it's possible, but not altogether likely. And you are devoting as many as 4 games to teams that likely won't play each other twice in the same decade! Sorry to have to tell you, it's not likely to happen anytime soon. So, whether or not you 'like' how teams schedule, is irrelevant.
Personally, I like how teams can make their own agreements. They have 'flexibility' with respect to who they play, and when. Your proposal might work on paper, but its probably not a good idea in practice.

First, I know it will never happen because it makes too much sense, if you really want to find out who is the best.

How you do in your conference only tells you how you match up in your conference. It doesn't matter if it is the B-10 or the MWC, no one really knows how good they are until they are matched up with their peers in other conferences. A conference could have the 6 best teams in the country, but you don't know it until they match up against a team considered their equal in another conference.

It wouldn't happen because no one wants to play that many high pressure games, but it is the only system I have heard about that would give you a good representation of how good all the teams from all the conferences really are.

[colorado_loves_football]

First, I know it will never happen because it makes too much sense, if you really want to find out who is the best.

How you do in your conference only tells you how you match up in your conference. It doesn't matter if it is the B-10 or the MWC, no one really knows how good they are until they are matched up with their peers in other conferences. A conference could have the 6 best teams in the country, but you don't know it until they match up against a team considered their equal in another conference.

It wouldn't happen because no one wants to play that many high pressure games, but it is the only system I have heard about that would give you a good representation of how good all the teams from all the conferences really are.

I don't know that it would 'never' happen, just that there is some question as to whether the NCAA would approve your proposal on face value.
The trend would appear to be more non-conference games, in general, for every team, irrespective of where they play. And in the case of S. Mississippi, they are obviously taking the 'higher road', competitively speaking. Doing that carries some risk if they can't win, consistently.
TCU has also taken a risk in some respect, scheduling LSU. There's no guarantee that by 2013 TCU will be any better than they are now, but they are likely planning on being better or else they likely wouldn't schedule LSU.
LSU might assume TCU is an 'easier' opponent than say Ohio State is.
And that's probably the thinking of a lot of teams. It might partly explain why up until now, anyway, it's been hard for TCU to get 'high-profile' non-conference games. I imagine the series against Oklahoma was scheduled far enough in advance that nobody 'knew' whether TCU would necessarily be any good, and that might explain why Oklahoma has lost two consecutive times to TCU in Norman, Ok. There's a psychological element involved, you typically play to the level of your competition.
So, the question remains, how would TCU do in a BCS pairing?
That has yet to be answered, but I believe they would do ok. Whether they would win, is still a question that remains un-answered. Maybe we'll find out this year, but if we don't I still think the BCS has 'progressed' somewhat to at least give them an opportunity.
Every year they make 'steps' toward giving more teams opportunity, and maybe someday every team will be represented, directly in it, giving competition the 'upper hand' in selecting a national champion.

[Spence]

LSU might assume TCU is an 'easier' opponent than say Ohio State is.

Doesn't matter, because TCU is playing pretty good football. If they keep winning it only helps LSU's SOS. It is a better pick up for TCU, it helps their SOS even more.

[colorado_loves_football]

I agree with you to a point, Spence. You have to keep in mind, this game won't be happening until after Gary Patterson's contract is up.
By that time, TCU might be back 'in the outhouse', like they were through most of the 1970's. It's a gamble, but one that likely will pay dividends for both teams, and that's what I like about how college football is organized. Teams are free to schedule whomever they want, when they want, if your proposal were to ever come into play, that might 'help' some teams, through SOS, but it would likely hurt teams that depend on OOC games as a source of revenue to their programs.
TCU has worked hard to get to this point, being 'free' to make deals with LSU likely wouldn't have happened had they not been competitive. So, it's like a 'reward' to their football program. LSU, as a football program, likely has a lot of 'pull', so scheduling TCU probably means a lot, for both programs. They also scheduled S. Mississippi, a few years from now.
I wish TCU still scheduled them, that would also honor tradition.
The 'cardiac' classic, alas is no more! Just think if it had been, last season. TCU likely would have had to play them, most likely in Hattiesburg, and likely would have lost (like 2003). But then again, maybe they would have won, thereby securing themselves a spot in the BCS? Just a thought. That's what it came down to in 2003, a win would likely have secured TCU a spot in the BCS, one year before Utah did it.

[Spence]

Teams are free to schedule whomever they want, when they want, if your proposal were to ever come into play, that might 'help' some teams, through SOS, but it would likely hurt teams that depend on OOC games as a source of revenue to their programs.

This is true. That is why Ohio State plays so many OOC games at home. When they schedule the non BCS schools they want to come in to get the check. Ohio State had a home and away scheduled with San Diego St. a few years ago and the San Diego St. AD changed it so they didn't have to pay Ohio State to come in. The San Diego St. coach didn't like it at all, he wanted to cancel the game.

[colorado_loves_football]

This is true. That is why Ohio State plays so many OOC games at home. When they schedule the non BCS schools they want to come in to get the check. Ohio State had a home and away scheduled with San Diego St. a few years ago and the San Diego St. AD changed it so they didn't have to pay Ohio State to come in. The San Diego St. coach didn't like it at all, he wanted to cancel the game.

Who was the AD at that time?
The reason I"M asking is Mike Bohn, the present AD was formerly the AD at San Diego St, now is AD at the University of Colorado, Boulder.
I do'nt know if I necessarily believe that as a 'fact'. Teams don't schedule teams, then cancel them without sufficient reason.
San Diego St, likely scheduled Ohio St, to see how well they 'stacked' up against a Division I-A powerhouse.
I am leaning toward the suspicion Ohio St, cancelled. I don't believe anyone would cancel a home game that likely would draw a lot of fans (and a lot of revenue), without sufficient reason. I attended a game in Provo, UT, BYU vs. Notre Dame, 2004. The stadium was jam-packed.
65,000 but likely more were in attendance. I can't believe it would be any different for San Diego St, than it was for Brigham Young Univeristy.

[Spence]

It was the last game Ohio State played with San Diego St. Ohio State did cancel a game at Washinton in a few years in favor of a home game. Washington had nothing to do with that decision.

[colorado_loves_football]

It was the last game Ohio State played with San Diego St. Ohio State did cancel a game at Washinton in a few years in favor of a home game. Washington had nothing to do with that decision.

Spence, I don't understand how teams schedule, and I likely never will either, but typically I think most teams stand behind their AD.
That's why I asked if it was Mike Bohn, he was hired to serve as CU's AD after being at San Diego St. So, I would't be surprised if he put together the Ohio St vs. San Diego St. 'package' deal. But even if he didn't, its possible San Diego St. simply 'forfeitted' the home game, for financial reasons. So, if that's what happened, then you are correct, those games are likely played in the opposing stadium for a reason.

[Spence]

I would't be surprised if he put together the Ohio St vs. San Diego St. 'package' deal. But even if he didn't, its possible San Diego St. simply 'forfeitted' the home game, for financial reasons. So, if that's what happened, then you are correct, those games are likely played in the opposing stadium for a reason.

That is exactly what happened. Ohio State has a good fan base around San Diego and the game would have sold out, but they still didn't feel that they could pay Ohio State what it would take to get them there. For Ohio State to leave the 'Shoe it takes about as much as if they were playing at home. That is why Ohio State would rarely ever play a small conference school in their house. Texas, where Ohio State goes this year is another story. They have the resources to get this sort of match up done.

[colorado_loves_football]

That is exactly what happened. Ohio State has a good fan base around San Diego and the game would have sold out, but they still didn't feel that they could pay Ohio State what it would take to get them there. For Ohio State to leave the 'Shoe it takes about as much as if they were playing at home. That is why Ohio State would rarely ever play a small conference school in their house. Texas, where Ohio State goes this year is another story. They have the resources to get this sort of match up done.

Just a guess on my part, but I assume it probably has something to do with the networks, as well. People are much more likely to watch a game between OSU and Texas than they are one between say Ohio State and San Diego State, but I still have a few doubts as far as why they weren't scheduled. It would appear to me that Ohio State might benefit from a trip to San Diego, I know if I was an athlete I'd likely enjoy going there. But, like I said, not knowing the reasons I can't make an educated opinion on it.
TCU, on the other hand likely schedules as good opponents as they can.
If you reviewed the information I posted I think you'd likely agree that they are doing the best they can to make 'fair' and competitive agreements with 'quality' teams. So, maybe we can 'lay to rest' the argument that TCU doesn't schedule 'good' opponents.

[Spence]

If you reviewed the information I posted I think you'd likely agree that they are doing the best they can to make 'fair' and competitive agreements with 'quality' teams. So, maybe we can 'lay to rest' the argument that TCU doesn't schedule 'good' opponents.

I never said they weren't trying. They just need to try and step it up. Unless most teams from the MWC schedule and beat top 25 competition they will always be a step behind in strength of schedule. It takes the whole conference to make the kind of jump you are talking about. I'm not saying they can't do it. Just that they haven't yet.

[colorado_loves_football]

I never said they weren't trying. They just need to try and step it up. Unless most teams from the MWC schedule and beat top 25 competition they will always be a step behind in strength of schedule. It takes the whole conference to make the kind of jump you are talking about. I'm not saying they can't do it. Just that they haven't yet.

I hope you are referring to the MWC, and not to TCU, because I think their scheduling is quite competitive, myself. They will be playing Stanford in 2007, and Arkansas 2008 & 2009. Those are competitiive teams by most people's standards, along with traditional rival SMU. They are also supposed to play Baylor in 2010 & 2011. Then they will play LSU in 2013 & 2014. For my money, those are outstanding football teams. I dont' know what the other Mountain West teams are doing.

[Spence]

I hope you are referring to the MWC, and not to TCU, because I think their scheduling is quite competitive, myself. They will be playing Stanford in 2007, and Arkansas 2008 & 2009. Those are competitiive teams by most people's standards, along with traditional rival SMU. They are also supposed to play Baylor in 2010 & 2011. Then they will play LSU in 2013 & 2014. For my money, those are outstanding football teams. I dont' know what the other Mountain West teams are doing.

I was refereing to both. LSU is the only team that is a national power. Stanford, Arkansas are middle of the road teams in their conferences. Baylor is on the low end of the B-12. I give them credit for upgrading their schedule and that is what it takes to make a move, but they aren't scheduling at this point a top 25 schedule. Arkansas or Stanford may however be ranked at some point in the season , Baylor likely won't be ranked at all.

[Jason G]

Sorry to interrupt this delightful debate. Just wanted to make a point here. TCU is scheduling LSU in 2013 and 2014. We have no idea where either of these programs may be that far down the road. LSU could go 1-11 in 2012 we just don't know. That is what happened to teams that had Syracuse and Purdue on their schedules in 2005.

That is why I think the whole SOS shouldn't carry as much weight as it sometimes does. This is also why I think Spence puts an emphasis on the schools the other teams in your conference schedule as well. At least if you are not playing the toughest of non-league schedules you at least tried and you still get to play teams that did play some of the top teams.

I just don't always understand why we always try to say who is going to be good and who is not before the season gets rolling. You never know who is going to be good and who is not until you are at least a few weeks into the season.

OK, I've had my say.....feel free to resume debating!

[colorado_loves_football]

Actually, Jason, I'm glad you intervened.
It's very hard to know for sure how good a team will be 7 years from now, much less this season, but one can maybe make hypotheses, with respect to a team's tradition. In other words, it's more likely than not that they will be respectable, if not good, in 2013.
As far as the other statements Spence made, I think they are without basis. Stanford is an excellent football program. They dont' traditionally 'dominate' the Pac-Ten, but they are known for being good, and could even challenge for the Pac-Ten title, in 2007. It's just another blanket statement, that somehow the teams TCU has aren't 'good' when there's no evidence whatsoever to back that up.
Baylor hasn't been a good Big XII team, that's a fair statement. But they are likely a lot better than in past years, assuming last year is seen as a 'fair' representation of where they are 'competitively'. They lost to the best two S. Divisional teams (Texas, Texas Tech) by large margins. But, outside of those games they were very competitive, so I don't agree that somehow playing Baylor won't 'test' TCU, I think it will, and TCU might be lucky to escape with a win. But that remains to be seen.
SMU isn't on this year's schedule, Texas Tech is, and they are a good football team, by anyone's standards, conveniently overlooked. Arkansas, maybe isn't a 'powerhouse' by his standards, but they've been consistently good, if not outstanding, in the SEC. They more-likely-than-not will be a test for the Frogs, they were SWC members. SMU will resume their tradition beginning in 2007. They are also a team 'on the rise' if last year's 4-4 C-USA record means anything. (5-6 overall). SMU lost to Baylor otherwise they are bowl elgible (SMU beat TCU).
Those things all tell me that TCU does play a competitive non-conference schedule. The only thing I don't know is the OOC for the rest of the MWC.
But I imagine it will likely give a similar result, but I could be wrong.
I think the standard being applied is an impossible one, that doesn't really address how some teams improve as the year 'progresses'.
The argument is that somehow a MWC team isn't sufficiently good enough to play in the BCS. That's obviously a very 'slanted' assumption, and one I feel relies heavily on distorted information.
It doesnt' stop on TCU. Any team could be applied. Basically, I think it supports my view that any 'non-BCS' team could legitimately play in the BCS, but until a provision is made, that gives them direct access, it likely won't happen soon, if at all. And that's sad, because many teams are already qualified. Even Tulsa, the C-USA champions, in some ways was as good as TCU was, in terms of their overall level of proficiency.
They beat Fresno St, the team that beat Boise St, and nearly beat USC.
That says something about how far some teams have come, competitively. A case could even be made for Akron, but I don't follow the MAC, so I can't offer one, but I'm sure you can, Jason G!