Southern Miss taking on 7 bowl teams in 2006

[Spence]

That is how you make it to the BCS. The C-USA and MAC conferences are known for taking on bold schedules. That is a reason they don't have the best records at the end of the year, but those conferences are better then people think. Schedules like that attract recruits and one of these days this kind of scheduling will pay off in the post season.

[colorado_loves_football]

I saw S. Mississippi's schedule, in effect they play two ACC teams (Virginia Tech & N.C. State) & one SEC team (Florida) along with S.E. Louisiana. But, since they are a C-USA team, those games will have little, if any bearing on winning the conference title, but could do a lot to make voters notice them, should they win those games.
S. Mississippi, is what I would call a 'betweener'. They can play aganist I-A teams in stronger conferences, and maybe win, but they still 'fit' in a 'lesser' conference, competitively-speaking. Now, with respect to the BCS, unless something's changed, they will likely need to win all those games to gain an 'at large' bid, next to impossible. Best they can hope for is win the C-USA and thereby 'earn' the Liberty Bowl invitation, something they probably could have done last year, but didn't.
So, it will be interesting to see how this plays itself out, Spence's 'formula' more-or-less applied to C-USA. My prediction:
Champion will likely have 3 losses, non-conference.

[Spence]

If they win their OOC games they will be in the BCS mix.

[colorado_loves_football]

Actually, S. Mississippi schedule is surprisingly similar to what they played last year, competitively speaking. They play Florida rather than Alabama, both teams from the SEC. They play NC State, this year.
They didn't play Virginia Tech last year, obviously, so that ought to strengthen their schedule significantly, but that's only one game.
Still, it does say something about making sure your schedule includes competitive teams, and it should be a good test to see whether or not S. Mississippi is sufficiently good enough to win C-USA outright.
They stumbled last year, after beating UCF, they later lost to Houston, then to Memphis, before finally beating Tulane. Those games, as I recall were scheduled fairly close together, so that might partly explain why S. Mississippi lost them. And those were C-USA games, not OOC games.
So, even if S.Mississippi should somehow beat all four OOC teams, they could still lose C-USA that's why I think your argument is flawed.
Conference games obviously are a lot more important to a team's success than those non-conference games are, and they more likely than not would keep S. Mississippi from being selected to the BCS, than help.

[Spence]

So, even if S.Mississippi should somehow beat all four OOC teams, they could still lose C-USA that's why I think your argument is flawed.
Conference games obviously are a lot more important to a team's success than those non-conference games are, and they more likely than not would keep S. Mississippi from being selected to the BCS, than help.

If S. Mississippi wins all their OOC games and loses 1 game to the eventual winner of the C-USA, They will still be ranked higher then the conference champ. Winning you conference only matters if your conference is good. Beating Florida, Va. Tech, and NC State in a year when all three teams are good would trump a loss to the C-USA conference champ. Winning with a tough schedule is more important then winning your conference. Most of the time the team that wins the conference is the better team, but it has happened when that was not the case. Kansas St. a few years ago wasn't better then Oklahoma. Ohio State played K-State in the Fiesta that year and no way K-State was a better over all team then Oklahoma. That is why I don't like conf. championship games. Who goes to the BCS should reflect the whole body of work not just one game.

[colorado_loves_football]

I don't agree that conference championships aren't fair, I think they are, and I also think they work pretty well as far as selecting one team to the BCS, where applicable.
You seem to have a short-term memory, at least as far as that goes.
That's not the only time a team has been upset in the title game, and assuredly won't be the last either. FSU 'earned' the right to play in the BCS by beating Virginia Tech. You can't tell me that wasn't fair, because both teams knew going into the game what was at stake.
Take that out of the equation and you really aren't left with much to bargain with. Maybe you don't like the idea of the Big Ten adopting that format, and that's ok. But you can't convince me that in general, it hasnt' worked. Oklahoma still got to play for the national championship even after losing to K-State 35-7. If anything, THAT's not fair!
When Texas and Colorado played in 2001, the winning team 'knew' they would likely play in the Rose Bowl. Colorado won, but weren't selected, most likely because they 'squeaked' their way to a win, otherwise, they might have been paired against Miami in the Rose Bowl (probably should have, anyway).
What's not fair, is utilizing a ranking that is too subjective. That year, SOS was a component, and it kept Colorado out, maybe for good reason.
Nebraska made it in largely on that component, and lost badly. The only other team was Oregon and they weren't taken largely because their SOS wasn't that great. All those things ought to tell you that at the end of the day, its not so important who you play as how well you play them.
SOS really doesn't matter that much anymore.

[Spence]

I never said that the games weren't fair. Just that the best teams do not always win.

In the case of Oklahoma that year, they probably shouldn't have made the championship game, because the K-State game showed the chinks in their armour. We weren't talking about the national championship though, we were talking about the conference championship and Oklahoma was better then K-State that year. K-State just got them when they were beat up. Had Oklahoma not had to play that game they would have had a couple extra weeks to heal and maybe they would have faired better in the NC game.

SOS is figured into the polls. It is a component in everyone of the computer polls and whether or not it is stated or not, it is considered in the human polls too. You may not think SOS should matter, but the fact of the matter, is that it does matter and is figured into the BCS equation by everyone who has a vote.

[colorado_loves_football]

I too think they are fair, yet I feel that they are down right dangerous for any team that is out right the better team going into the championship game. Every team in a conference that has a championship game is well aware of it. Nobody is going to convince me that Georgia and Florida State were better than LSU and V Tech. Nobody in their right mind actually should think the Dawgs or Noles were better unless they are from Athens or Tallahassee.

The biggest issue I have with championship games is that the winner seems to get no extra credit for that game they seem to have nothing to gain and a whole lot to lose. I know it doesn't apply now but two years ago LSU lost some of its quality win points by beating Georgia for a second time (the loss by Georgia dropped their ranking hence hurting LSU). Imagine that, USC almost made it to the 2003 Sugar Bowl and the fact that LSU beat a team that was better than the Trojans faced all season, including Michigan, not once but twice. SOS is still a factor in the system and the championship game should be viewed as another game which makes a team's schedule that much stronger.

Oklahoma made it in despite their loss which was completely unfair to every conference championship game loser who happened to be the better team going into the game.

David I'm not sure I completely understand what you are saying, but I vaguely remember the scenario whereby LSU captured a share of the national championship, by beating Georgia. If I'm not mistaken, Georgia was still a pretty good team, just not LSU good, and the result bore that out, but you may be right, that it's something along the lines of 'double jeapardy' to have to play (and beat) the same team two times. But, Georgia got itself in position to win the SEC, and they were fairly highly ranked, if memory serves, despite having lost to LSU earlier in the year. And there have been several occasions where a team loses in the championship after already having been victorious in a preliminary pairing. But those are likely more the exception to the rule.
Had Georgia beaten LSU, then they rightly would have 'earned' a BCS bid.
It would have ruined whatever chances LSU might have had for a BCS title, but at least it would have been fair. That year, somehow Oklahoma was able to stay in the national championship 'hunt' even after losing to Kansas St. In those situations, I would prefer that they take a 'back seat' to a more deserving team, in this case, USC.
But my question is are championships fair? And your initial response was that they were. And I agree, I think they are more fair, than the alternative, which amounts to having co-champions. If nothing else, it gives the BCS more 'freedom' to invite 'at large' teams that might otherwise never have an opportunity. I never said they were a 'cure-all' I simply stated they were a better alternative than not having them at all.

[Spence]

But my question is are championships fair? And your initial response was that they were. And I agree, I think they are more fair, than the alternative, which amounts to having co-champions. If nothing else, it gives the BCS more 'freedom' to invite 'at large' teams that might otherwise never have an opportunity. I never said they were a 'cure-all' I simply stated they were a better alternative than not having them at all.

Why is having a co-champ unfair?

[colorado_loves_football]

Why is having a co-champ unfair?

I shouldn't have implied it's unfair, I just don't agree that in principle it's the best way to go about it. Last year, obviously there were 'co-champions' in the Big Ten, and rightfully so. Each team (OSU & Penn St.) were equally qualified to represent the Big Ten. However I think a conference championship likely would have selected the 'best' of the two.
Sometimes that's not possible, but it's worked pretty well, for the Big XII.

Had say, Ohio State beaten Penn St, it's possible that might have opened up a can of worms, but if nothing else, it would have 'proven' that Ohio St 'deserved' an at large bid to the BCS. I don't mean to imply they weren't qualified, I just mean in terms of representation. Penn St, also was qualified, but I might have preferred seeing them 'sweat' just like Texas did, and pretty much any other team that was given a 'priority' spot in the BCS. W. Virginia was the other team that wasn't required to play in a 'championship' arrangment, but if say, Notre Dame were somehow required to, then W. Virginia would make a good opponent, and that could maybe 'remove' the element of 'preliminary' BCS pairings.

I believe they work better than any other hypothetical arrangement, so that's why I would prefer they be applied unilaterally, thereby giving every conference sufficient opportunity to be admitted to the BCS.
If you really sit down and study it, I think maybe you'll come to the same conclusion I did, but if you are happy with having multiple conference champions, I guess that's your right, but I prefer giving one team honors.

[Spence]

Had say, Ohio State beaten Penn St, it's possible that might have opened up a can of worms, but if nothing else, it would have 'proven' that Ohio St 'deserved' an at large bid to the BCS.

If Ohio State had beaten Penn St. they would have won the championship outright. Penn St. would have been the BCS at - large, but not a conference champion.

[Howdy]

So, even if S.Mississippi should somehow beat all four OOC teams, they could still lose C-USA that's why I think your argument is flawed.
Conference games obviously are a lot more important to a team's success than those non-conference games are, and they more likely than not would keep S. Mississippi from being selected to the BCS, than help.

If S. Mississippi wins all their OOC games and loses 1 game to the eventual winner of the C-USA, They will still be ranked higher then the conference champ. Winning you conference only matters if your conference is good. Beating Florida, Va. Tech, and NC State in a year when all three teams are good would trump a loss to the C-USA conference champ. Winning with a tough schedule is more important then winning your conference. Most of the time the team that wins the conference is the better team, but it has happened when that was not the case. Kansas St. a few years ago wasn't better then Oklahoma. Ohio State played K-State in the Fiesta that year and no way K-State was a better over all team then Oklahoma. That is why I don't like conf. championship games. Who goes to the BCS should reflect the whole body of work not just one game.

Tom Osborne said the same thing when he voted no for a conf.playoff.
Also It may keep two teams from the same conf.out of the BCS.

[Spence]

Tom Osborne is a bright guy.

Conference championship games are only about $$$. It is almost always a one sided affair because more often then not the best 2 teams in a conference play in the same division. A team that is 7-4 plays in the championship with nothing to lose and everything to gain. They can play like there is no tomorrow. On the other side a team that is 10-1 or 11-0 has to keep their players healthy and try to win with a generic game plan so they don't show to much to the team they play in the bowl. The favorite in that game is almost always at a disadvantage.

The favorite works their butt of to win games and not have a let down. Getting up for every game, playing though injuries, putting together a chance for a dream season and then the 7-4 team comes in from the weak side of the conference and beats them and goes to the big bowl. (and usually loses) Proving that the championship game did nothing, but embarrass the conference.

The SEC is the only conference that usually has two teams with equal reason to be there.

[colorado_loves_football]

Someone in the S. Mississippi athletics' department must have caught wind of Spence's proposal, click on the following 'link' then click on 'future' schedules.
http://www.goldeneagles.net
I also found another interesting link that dealt with the S. Mississippi vs. TCU series, they call it the 'Cardiac Classic'. Interesting sidelight to that is, that in 2001, TCU 'earned' the right to play in the GalleryFurniture.com bowl, what's now known as the Houston Bowl, by beating S.Mississippi. But now that TCU isn't in C-USA they likely won't play each other anymore
That's the drawback, Spence, to your proposal, if S.Mississippi was more of a 'traditionalist' they would likely be setting up home & away 'deals' with TCU. As it is, they will be playing the likes of Tennessee, Auburn, Penn St, and even LSU! Now if we could only put TCU in there, the 'cardiac classic' would live on! So, there are drawbacks to playing a competitive 'non-conference' scedule, you can lose traditional games that probably have more significance in the eyes of the public.

Here's the 'cardiac' classic link I was talking about:
http://goldeneaglefans.homestead.com/Cardiac.html
Traditionally, the winner of that game has either won C-USA or in the case of TCU played in the GalleryFurniture.com bowl, probably a reason they were invited back this year (but in Houston).

[Spence]

That's the drawback, Spence, to your proposal, if S.Mississippi was more of a 'traditionalist' they would likely be setting up home & away 'deals' with TCU. As it is, they will be playing the likes of Tennessee, Auburn, Penn St, and even LSU! Now if we could only put TCU in there, the 'cardiac classic' would live on! So, there are drawbacks to playing a competitive 'non-conference' scedule, you can lose traditional games that probably have more significance in the eyes of the public.

I applaud S. Mississippi for bold scheduling. It is high risk high reward and if they win they will get noticed.