NCAA Football re-alignment?

[jersey cubs fan]

IMO it shouldn't be on Boise State or TCU to somehow convince others that they are worthy. It should be on others to prove that they're better than Boise State or TCU. Thus far...not many are willing to take that risk.

 

That's a really weird thing to say.

[Banedon]

IMO it shouldn't be on Boise State or TCU to somehow convince others that they are worthy. It should be on others to prove that they're better than Boise State or TCU.

 

It's not others that have 4-5 actual games on their schedule each year, it's Boise.

 

Boise can only play the teams that will play them. If Alabama fans or Ohio State fans or whoever is worried that they won't get into the National Championship game with 1 loss because of Boise State's cupcake schedule, then they should have put Boise State on their schedule.

[Tracer Bullet]

so BCS teams have to know 2-3 years in advance (when most scheduling is done) who the top non-BCS teams will be in those years and try to schedule them? Sure, it works for BSU right now b/c they're on a run for the last few years. But it's not like you're always going to know which non-BCS team is the biggest threat to go undefeated.

[Tracer Bullet]

back to re-alignment, this is interesting: http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1123563

[Banedon]

so BCS teams have to know 2-3 years in advance (when most scheduling is done) who the top non-BCS teams will be in those years and try to schedule them? Sure, it works for BSU right now b/c they're on a run for the last few years. But it's not like you're always going to know which non-BCS team is the biggest threat to go undefeated.

 

I guess my point is that Boise and TCU can only schedule the teams that will play them. Telling them to go out and "schedule harder teams" is pretty disingenuous. Harder teams need to be willing to play them to improve the SOS.

[SpongeWorthy]

Wasn't the Virginia Tech/BSU game put together just last season? It seems like there's always a big, quality BCS program with an early opening in its schedule every year.

 

Of course that makes Boise's options for scheduling a tough game on the fly pretty limited.

[Tracer Bullet]

so BCS teams have to know 2-3 years in advance (when most scheduling is done) who the top non-BCS teams will be in those years and try to schedule them? Sure, it works for BSU right now b/c they're on a run for the last few years. But it's not like you're always going to know which non-BCS team is the biggest threat to go undefeated.

 

I guess my point is that Boise and TCU can only schedule the teams that will play them. Telling them to go out and "schedule harder teams" is pretty disingenuous. Harder teams need to be willing to play them to improve the SOS.

 

True - they can only schedule teams that will play them, but it's not disingenuous to ask that they play a harder schedule. They don't have to play USC, Alabama, and Florida every year. Scheduling Va Tech and Oregon State is a good move. But I think they have 4 OOC games and 2 are Wyoming and Toledo in 2010. There's a huge gulf between Wyoming and Alabama.

 

I have no idea how difficult it is for BSU to schedule games and how much of the talk is genuine. But I have to think you could find at least 1 more BCS team willing to do a Home/Home or 2/1 with BSU at this point. If I were BSU and being considered for the National Title game were my top concern, I'd take 1 home/home with a BCS school, and 2 BCS games against top programs any way I can get them, even if it means only road or neutral site games. I'd probably even schedule the 4th OOC game against a BCS team (not necessarily top program), home/home if possible.

 

But $ also has to be a concern for their program, so they can't have just 5 home games without getting big bowl payouts every year. It's a tough spot, I won't argue that.

[jersey cubs fan]

so BCS teams have to know 2-3 years in advance (when most scheduling is done) who the top non-BCS teams will be in those years and try to schedule them? Sure, it works for BSU right now b/c they're on a run for the last few years. But it's not like you're always going to know which non-BCS team is the biggest threat to go undefeated.

 

I guess my point is that Boise and TCU can only schedule the teams that will play them. Telling them to go out and "schedule harder teams" is pretty disingenuous. Harder teams need to be willing to play them to improve the SOS.

 

So are you telling me that nobody better than Wyoming or Toledo was willing to play them when they scheduled those games? When you play that conference schedule whey are you even bothering putting Toledo on the schedule? The fact is it serves them very well to not play tougher teams because it gives them a better chance of finishing undefeated and going to a bigger bowl plus getting more national exposure. As soon as one of these teams loses an early game, they are no longer interesting and don't get publicity.

[SpongeWorthy]

I think if you took Boise's OOC schedule over the last couple seasons and added a MWC conference schedule there wouldn't be too much of an uproar of them getting in over a 1-loss BCS conference school. Moving forward, losing BYU on the conference slate hurts though.

 

Edit: Oh yeah, losing Utah too. I guess the MWC probably isn't enough any more.

Edited September 9, 2010 by SpongeWorthy

[Guest]

IMO it shouldn't be on Boise State or TCU to somehow convince others that they are worthy. It should be on others to prove that they're better than Boise State or TCU.

 

It's not others that have 4-5 actual games on their schedule each year, it's Boise.

 

Boise can only play the teams that will play them. If Alabama fans or Ohio State fans or whoever is worried that they won't get into the National Championship game with 1 loss because of Boise State's cupcake schedule, then they should have put Boise State on their schedule.

 

Other teams aren't going to be able to change the fact that half Boise's schedule is filled with nobodies like Louisiana Tech and New Mexico State. That will change next year(and scheduling wouldn't be an issue at all if Utah and/or BYU had stayed), but until then there's no one at fault, it just sucks that Boise's conference mates are all hot garbage.

[Banedon]

True - they can only schedule teams that will play them, but it's not disingenuous to ask that they play a harder schedule. They don't have to play USC, Alabama, and Florida every year. Scheduling Va Tech and Oregon State is a good move. But I think they have 4 OOC games and 2 are Wyoming and Toledo in 2010. There's a huge gulf between Wyoming and Alabama.

 

I have no idea how difficult it is for BSU to schedule games and how much of the talk is genuine. But I have to think you could find at least 1 more BCS team willing to do a Home/Home or 2/1 with BSU at this point. If I were BSU and being considered for the National Title game were my top concern, I'd take 1 home/home with a BCS school, and 2 BCS games against top programs any way I can get them, even if it means only road or neutral site games. I'd probably even schedule the 4th OOC game against a BCS team (not necessarily top program), home/home if possible.

 

But $ also has to be a concern for their program, so they can't have just 5 home games without getting big bowl payouts every year. It's a tough spot, I won't argue that.

 

Also as you mentioned earlier, they "run" that they're on is relatively recent in the scope of things. At the time they would have had to schedule these games, they'd only had a couple of years of success. I imagine in the next 4-5 years, they'll have much better options for non-conference games. That doesn't help them in the argument this year, but frankly, I don't imagine they much care about the crying of other teams fans much. :)

[Tracer Bullet]

True - they can only schedule teams that will play them, but it's not disingenuous to ask that they play a harder schedule. They don't have to play USC, Alabama, and Florida every year. Scheduling Va Tech and Oregon State is a good move. But I think they have 4 OOC games and 2 are Wyoming and Toledo in 2010. There's a huge gulf between Wyoming and Alabama.

 

I have no idea how difficult it is for BSU to schedule games and how much of the talk is genuine. But I have to think you could find at least 1 more BCS team willing to do a Home/Home or 2/1 with BSU at this point. If I were BSU and being considered for the National Title game were my top concern, I'd take 1 home/home with a BCS school, and 2 BCS games against top programs any way I can get them, even if it means only road or neutral site games. I'd probably even schedule the 4th OOC game against a BCS team (not necessarily top program), home/home if possible.

 

But $ also has to be a concern for their program, so they can't have just 5 home games without getting big bowl payouts every year. It's a tough spot, I won't argue that.

 

Also as you mentioned earlier, they "run" that they're on is relatively recent in the scope of things. At the time they would have had to schedule these games, they'd only had a couple of years of success. I imagine in the next 4-5 years, they'll have much better options for non-conference games. That doesn't help them in the argument this year, but frankly, I don't imagine they much care about the crying of other teams fans much. :)

 

Probably not. Though they're care about their own crying fans if they get jumped by a 1-loss BCS team that played a few more quality games.

[SouthSideRyan]

back to re-alignment, this is interesting: http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1123563

 

I can't see any way Notre Dame would want to be aligned with pretty much any of the Big 12 schools with the exception of Texas (and maybe Oklahoma)

[Banedon]

So are you telling me that nobody better than Wyoming or Toledo was willing to play them when they scheduled those games? When you play that conference schedule whey are you even bothering putting Toledo on the schedule? The fact is it serves them very well to not play tougher teams because it gives them a better chance of finishing undefeated and going to a bigger bowl plus getting more national exposure. As soon as one of these teams loses an early game, they are no longer interesting and don't get publicity.

 

I think there's a lot of conspiracy theory going on here. Maybe on my side as well...I dunno. Truth is, we don't know what the real ability of Boise to schedule good teams is. Your assumption is that they want to have an easy schedule. Mine is that there's no benefit for the consistently highly ranked teams to play Boise or TCU or whatever other "upstarts" there may be.

 

I'm glad Boise is changing conferences. I would've liked to have seen it be the PAC-10 instead of the MWC, but it's still a lot better than the WAC.

[jersey cubs fan]

So are you telling me that nobody better than Wyoming or Toledo was willing to play them when they scheduled those games? When you play that conference schedule whey are you even bothering putting Toledo on the schedule? The fact is it serves them very well to not play tougher teams because it gives them a better chance of finishing undefeated and going to a bigger bowl plus getting more national exposure. As soon as one of these teams loses an early game, they are no longer interesting and don't get publicity.

 

I think there's a lot of conspiracy theory going on here. Maybe on my side as well...I dunno. Truth is, we don't know what the real ability of Boise to schedule good teams is. Your assumption is that they want to have an easy schedule. Mine is that there's no benefit for the consistently highly ranked teams to play Boise or TCU or whatever other "upstarts" there may be.

 

I'm glad Boise is changing conferences. I would've liked to have seen it be the PAC-10 instead of the MWC, but it's still a lot better than the WAC.

 

My assumption is that if they really wanted to, they could definitely schedule better competition than Toledo and Wyoming.

[Tracer Bullet]

back to re-alignment, this is interesting: http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1123563

 

I can't see any way Notre Dame would want to be aligned with pretty much any of the Big 12 schools with the exception of Texas (and maybe Oklahoma)

 

I don't think they'd accept an invite into whatever the Big 12 will be called. Agreed.

[dew1679666265]

My assumption is that if they really wanted to, they could definitely schedule better competition than Toledo and Wyoming.

 

I've heard it reported (on Sportscenter and the like, no links as proof however) that Boise has offered to play one-time games on the road with more prolific schools and has been turned down at each offer.

 

From the reports, they're not content with the softer schedule. As far as simply getting teams better than Wyoming and Toledo, would people really give them credit for beating Kentucky at home or Duke at a neutral site? And what motivation do those teams have to play Boise when they have their own tough conference schedules to play, which they generally don't win much in anyway? Boise is in a unique spot (kind of along with Utah, BYU and TCU) where there's really no positives for major programs to play them, yet they need to play as many major programs as possible.

 

As long as we have the BCS, there will be no reason for a major program to schedule Boise. Why a few do now I have no idea, because there's no real gain to it (except perhaps some monetary gain).

[jersey cubs fan]

My assumption is that if they really wanted to, they could definitely schedule better competition than Toledo and Wyoming.

 

I've heard it reported (on Sportscenter and the like, no links as proof however) that Boise has offered to play one-time games on the road with more prolific schools and has been turned down at each offer.

 

From the reports, they're not content with the softer schedule. As far as simply getting teams better than Wyoming and Toledo, would people really give them credit for beating Kentucky at home or Duke at a neutral site? And what motivation do those teams have to play Boise when they have their own tough conference schedules to play, which they generally don't win much in anyway? Boise is in a unique spot (kind of along with Utah, BYU and TCU) where there's really no positives for major programs to play them, yet they need to play as many major programs as possible.

 

As long as we have the BCS, there will be no reason for a major program to schedule Boise. Why a few do now I have no idea, because there's no real gain to it (except perhaps some monetary gain).

 

There's plenty of gain. You get some national attention, and your own strength of schedule can benefit. It's a challenge to get a Penn State on your schedule, but it doesn't have to be Penn State. But why is it Toledo? They lose 7 games every year. If you are going to schedule a Mid-American team why not one that doesn't suck every year? I'm guessing they have some sort of rivalry to justify the Wyoming game, but they'd be better off scheduling a Mountain West team that wins a little more frequently. Why not get another big fish in small pond school to play you every year? Maybe you can't get all the SEC or Big Ten schools to play ball, but there's plenty of second tier BCS schools out there playing this type of school.

 

As I said before, it actually serves their purpose to limit the amount of tough games, because if they finish undefeated, at least they are in the headlines on everybody's mind and playing in a big bowl game. One loss and they are going to drop.

[dew1679666265]

There's plenty of gain. You get some national attention, and your own strength of schedule can benefit.

 

Most of the major schools don't have a need to strengthen their schedule because they have SEC teams or Big Ten teams or whatever on their schedule already. If an Alabama or Penn State or Miami needs to improve their schedule, it's more prestigious to play another major program in a major conference rather than Boise. It shouldn't be, but it is because there's still more name recognition with USC/Ohio State/etc than there is with Boise, but the game is just as tough.

 

It's a challenge to get a Penn State on your schedule, but it doesn't have to be Penn State. But why is it Toledo? They lose 7 games every year. If you are going to schedule a Mid-American team why not one that doesn't suck every year? I'm guessing they have some sort of rivalry to justify the Wyoming game, but they'd be better off scheduling a Mountain West team that wins a little more frequently. Why not get another big fish in small pond school to play you every year? Maybe you can't get all the SEC or Big Ten schools to play ball, but there's plenty of second tier BCS schools out there playing this type of school.

 

If Boise wants widespread respect and a chance to play for a BCS title, they can't play 1-2 BCS programs and then Western Michigan and Tulsa every year. Especially not with how awful the WAC is. To be able to get into the BCS title game, they'll pretty much have to face major programs in major conferences. Voters aren't going to give them a ton more credit for beating Western Michigan instead of Toledo (though they should) and the coaches' poll is a huge part of the BCS.

 

TCU, BYU, Utah, etc. would help, but it'd be just like last year's Fiesta Bowl – voters and many fans would write off the win as just two overhyped "minor" programs beating up on each other. To have a chance to crack the BCS title game, Boise has to play and beat the elite programs or move into the Pac-10, Big 12, etc.

 

As I said before, it actually serves their purpose to limit the amount of tough games, because if they finish undefeated, at least they are in the headlines on everybody's mind and playing in a big bowl game. One loss and they are going to drop.

 

If their concern was simply to finish undefeated every year, they'd schedule Toledo/Wyoming/1AA/Arkansas St every year and not be trying as hard as they reportedly are to play the top teams out there. If it's true that they offered to play one-time deals with elite programs, that tells me their interest is garnering enough national attention to reach the BCS title game, not simply to go unbeaten.

[hawkeyecub]

so BCS teams have to know 2-3 years in advance (when most scheduling is done) who the top non-BCS teams will be in those years and try to schedule them? Sure, it works for BSU right now b/c they're on a run for the last few years. But it's not like you're always going to know which non-BCS team is the biggest threat to go undefeated.

 

I guess my point is that Boise and TCU can only schedule the teams that will play them. Telling them to go out and "schedule harder teams" is pretty disingenuous. Harder teams need to be willing to play them to improve the SOS.

 

Like I posted in last week's thread, they turned down 2 games at Nebraska to get 1 at Boise. People saying no one will play them sound like Vitale screaming that no one is willing to play the mid-majors in basketball. Teams will play Boise, but it doesn't make sense for them to schedule a true home and home. When your conference is garbage you need to play a good team on the road.

[jersey cubs fan]

TCU, BYU, Utah, etc. would help, but it'd be just like last year's Fiesta Bowl – voters and many fans would write off the win as just two overhyped "minor" programs beating up on each other. To have a chance to crack the BCS title game, Boise has to play and beat the elite programs or move into the Pac-10, Big 12, etc.

 

Right, just like this year when everybody wrote it off and they were ranked 3rd.

 

If their concern was simply to finish undefeated every year, they'd schedule Toledo/Wyoming/1AA/Arkansas St every year and not be trying as hard as they reportedly are to play the top teams out there.

 

It's a balance between playing a couple of them to get some respect and staying undefeated to remain relavent.

[Jon]

Boise State playing a good team on the road more often is a pretty dangerous proposition. Not only do they lose revenue from a home gate, but they (and their conference) would lose money with a lower BCS payout.

 

Honestly, they're not in a bad position right now. They're probably better off financially with consistent BCS appearances than the occasional shot at a national championship while being knocked out of BCS contention with a road loss in other years.

[dew1679666265]

Right, just like this year when everybody wrote it off and they were ranked 3rd.

 

They're reaching 3rd or 4th by playing the schedule you're saying they should beef up. I'm talking about shooting for the BCS title game. Playing TCU/BYU/Utah won't do that.

 

It's a balance between playing a couple of them to get some respect and staying undefeated to remain relavent.

 

That may very well be what they're doing, but scheduling 4 premiere BCS programs every season isn't realistic anyway.

[dew1679666265]

Boise State playing a good team on the road more often is a pretty dangerous proposition. Not only do they lose revenue from a home gate, but they (and their conference) would lose money with a lower BCS payout.

 

Honestly, they're not in a bad position right now. They're probably better off financially with consistent BCS appearances than the occasional shot at a national championship while being knocked out of BCS contention with a road loss in other years.

 

That's the problem. In the current system, their only hope to make the BCS title game is to put together a schedule that will make it almost impossible to go unbeaten most years. But as soon as they lose one of those games - no matter how many others they win - they're out of the title race. Whereas other teams (Bama, Ohio State, pretty much any premiere BCS program) could lose 1-2 games with the same schedule and make it.

[TruffleShuffle]

yeah the money thing is a big deal; boise st, tcu and utah can't just go tramping around to play 3/4 road games against good bcs teams every year - even in the unlikely event that they could get that many takers, they really can't afford to not make whatever they make from 2/3 home games a year. and it's not like bcs teams are going to give boise or tcu $750k to come beat them.