BCS Bowl Projections

Home ▸ Archive ▸ College Sports ▸ BCS Bowl Projections
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Nov 8, 2010 9:08 PM
believer;549820 wrote:That's what Big 10 fans once believed.

That one year they were the best?
Nov 8, 2010 9:08pm
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Nov 8, 2010 9:12 PM
enigmaax;550798 wrote:That one year they were the best?

Some of us are old enough to remember when the SEC sucked ass. You know, before Steve Spurrier?
Nov 8, 2010 9:12pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Nov 8, 2010 10:24 PM
ytownfootball;550806 wrote:Some of us are old enough to remember when the SEC sucked ass. You know, before Steve Spurrier?

That doesn't really address when you think the Big Ten was THE league. I mean, 85 was a pretty good year for the Big Ten but even that year the SEC had two top 5s and more ranked teams. Just because you don't remember hearing about which conference was better doesn't mean there wasn't life outside the midwest back then.

What timeframe were you thinking?
Nov 8, 2010 10:24pm
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Nov 8, 2010 10:37 PM
enigmaax;550987 wrote:.

What timeframe were you thinking?


Nothing in particular, just poking at you for your one reference...lots of history to dissect if that's to be proved, and isn't actually relevant or even comparable in as much as the AP was used primarily back in the day.
Nov 8, 2010 10:37pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Nov 8, 2010 10:52 PM
ytownfootball;551017 wrote:Nothing in particular, just poking at you for your one reference...lots of history to dissect if that's to be proved, and isn't actually relevant or even comparable in as much as the AP was used primarily back in the day.

I know...it'd be interesting to really look at it, but until that happens we're in a world of one off cheap shots.

And by the way....Florida's 1984 mathematical national titles were before Steve Spurrier.
Nov 8, 2010 10:52pm
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Nov 8, 2010 11:04 PM
Lol...ok
Nov 8, 2010 11:04pm
C

cats gone wild

Senior Member

2,651 posts
Nov 8, 2010 11:27 PM
Kinda random, but...
2 out of the top 3 BCS teams have very weak schedules. Oregon has played teams with a winning percentage of .390 for the season, and TCU has only played 3 teams with a winning record. I guess beating nobodies and boosting stats makes you a top team?!
Nov 8, 2010 11:27pm
wildcats20's avatar

wildcats20

In ROY I Trust!!

27,794 posts
Nov 8, 2010 11:29 PM
cats gone wild;551126 wrote:Kinda random, but...
2 out of the top 3 BCS teams have very weak schedules. Oregon has played teams with a winning percentage of .390 for the season, and TCU has only played 3 teams with a winning record. I guess beating nobodies and boosting stats makes you a top team?!

No, no. It's beating those weak ass teams by 40+ that makes you the best. :rolleyes:
Nov 8, 2010 11:29pm
C

cats gone wild

Senior Member

2,651 posts
Nov 8, 2010 11:32 PM
And, SOS for the top 10 teams is pretty pitiful besides LSU and Auburn. Oregon has a SOS of 83.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/rankings/120/index1
Nov 8, 2010 11:32pm
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Nov 8, 2010 11:50 PM
cats gone wild;551126 wrote:Kinda random, but...
2 out of the top 3 BCS teams have very weak schedules. Oregon has played teams with a winning percentage of .390 for the season, and TCU has only played 3 teams with a winning record. I guess beating nobodies and boosting stats makes you a top team?!

This is exactly why I don't like seeing teams like Boise/TCU get a shot at the title. The message it sends to the rest of the teams is that you don't need to play a tough OOC schedule. What's the point of having a tough OOC schedule when one loss could potentially put you out of the race? It's BS, they should have to pick their scheduling up, not the rest of college football bringing it down. It's terrible for the game overall. And to those that think they will somehow be inspired to implement a play-off due to a little chaos...forget it it won't happen.
Nov 8, 2010 11:50pm
C

cats gone wild

Senior Member

2,651 posts
Nov 9, 2010 12:12 AM
ytownfootball;551186 wrote:This is exactly why I don't like seeing teams like Boise/TCU get a shot at the title. The message it sends to the rest of the teams is that you don't need to play a tough OOC schedule. What's the point of having a tough OOC schedule when one loss could potentially put you out of the race? It's BS, they should have to pick their scheduling up, not the rest of college football bringing it down. It's terrible for the game overall. And to those that think they will somehow be inspired to implement a play-off due to a little chaos...forget it it won't happen.
San Jose St. (although they havent done good at all) is #3 in SOS having 4 top 15 teams on their schedule. Why cant Boise/TCU and other smaller schools do the same?
Nov 9, 2010 12:12am
A

Al Bundy

Senior Member

4,180 posts
Nov 9, 2010 8:05 AM
cats gone wild;551200 wrote:San Jose St. (although they havent done good at all) is #3 in SOS having 4 top 15 teams on their schedule. Why cant Boise/TCU and other smaller schools do the same?

Because they want to create a schedule where they can go 12-0. How many SEC and Big Ten schools would go undefeated with the schedule of Boise or TCU? I think at least 7 of them would.
Nov 9, 2010 8:05am
T

the_system

Senior Member

465 posts
Nov 9, 2010 5:40 PM
They were talking about how some of the top teams have lightweight schedules on espn radio last week. They were worried that these teams scheduling as easy as possible and, if there is a half-way difficult game, putting it in early so you might be able to bounce back will set the standard for football in the future if they are successful in reaching a title game. (Boise and TCU). Basically BCS teams will say screw it and schedule light in OOC games.

Normally it has been a non-issue because BSU and TCU have started lower in the polls. All you need now is some hype in the preseason polls for a high ranking, then maintain it by beating scabs all year while the few teams ahead of you lose. Eventually these squirrels will find a nut with this method.
Nov 9, 2010 5:40pm
A

Al Bundy

Senior Member

4,180 posts
Nov 9, 2010 7:16 PM
the_system;551826 wrote:They were talking about how some of the top teams have lightweight schedules on espn radio last week. They were worried that these teams scheduling as easy as possible and, if there is a half-way difficult game, putting it in early so you might be able to bounce back will set the standard for football in the future if they are successful in reaching a title game. (Boise and TCU). Basically BCS teams will say screw it and schedule light in OOC games.

Normally it has been a non-issue because BSU and TCU have started lower in the polls. All you need now is some hype in the preseason polls for a high ranking, then maintain it by beating scabs all year while the few teams ahead of you lose. Eventually these squirrels will find a nut with this method.
I agree that some major programs play light schedules, but those schedules are still much more difficult than the schedules that Boise and TCU play. Couldn't Boise and TCU at least schedule each other? Didn't Boise just turn down an offer to play Nebraska?
Nov 9, 2010 7:16pm
Little Danny's avatar

Little Danny

Senior Member

4,288 posts
Nov 9, 2010 7:39 PM
Al Bundy;551932 wrote:I agree that some major programs play light schedules, but those schedules are still much more difficult than the schedules that Boise and TCU play. Couldn't Boise and TCU at least schedule each other? Didn't Boise just turn down an offer to play Nebraska?

Boise is actually joining the MWC next year. If TCU does leave for greener pastures they will play each other. Of course, Utah and BYU will be out of the MWC so I guess it will be a wash.

The fact of the matter though is teams in the SEC/B10/B12 only want to play teams like Boise on their terms-- meaning they are not willing to play a home and home series. Like the "big boys" teams like Boise et al. need home games as well so they can generate revenue and get the home base excited.
Nov 9, 2010 7:39pm
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Nov 9, 2010 7:58 PM
Face it Danny, teams don't want to play on that damn cartoon playing surface. Fact is, if they want to taken seriously, they need to rip that shit up and appear legit.

and please take a look at the proposed offer Oklahoma and Boise had for a home and home...
Nov 9, 2010 7:58pm
Little Danny's avatar

Little Danny

Senior Member

4,288 posts
Nov 9, 2010 8:02 PM
So if Boise had green turf everyone would be willing to play there? Please.... we all know teams do not go there because they have nothing to gain by traveling there. If they beat the Broncos there were supposed to. If they lose then everyone is all over their case.

As far as Oklahoma goes, just because they agreed doesn't mean that the Cornhuskers did. Oklahoma actually has traveled away a few times, most recently they came to Cincinnati to play UC.
Nov 9, 2010 8:02pm
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Nov 9, 2010 8:09 PM
I'm referring to Boise's demand to be paid a cool million to travel to Oklahoma (or was it Nebraska?). Hard to play the victim card with those type of demands don't you think?

And yeah...the blue turf is an issue, don't be so naive. For programs with tradition and posterity, having your team appear on that surface looks bad, it just does.
Nov 9, 2010 8:09pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Nov 9, 2010 8:46 PM
Little Danny;551974 wrote: Please.... we all know teams do not go there because they have nothing to gain by traveling there. If they beat the Broncos there were supposed to. If they lose then everyone is all over their case.

But the onus isn't on everyone else to help Boise make its case. Its been mentioned before and there was a blip during a game this past weekend - look at what Florida State, before becoming a powerhouse, scheduled in 80-81 to get its big boy start. It was something like five road games in a row - at Nebraska, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Pitt, and LSU. It took them awhile from there to establish themselves as elite (they only finished 6-5 that season), but it was a move in the right direction and look at what the program became. (Also, it was a dose of reality - one that Boise would likely get if they'd man up like that one season.)
Nov 9, 2010 8:46pm
krambman's avatar

krambman

Senior Member

3,606 posts
Nov 9, 2010 11:31 PM
enigmaax;552013 wrote:But the onus isn't on everyone else to help Boise make its case. Its been mentioned before and there was a blip during a game this past weekend - look at what Florida State, before becoming a powerhouse, scheduled in 80-81 to get its big boy start. It was something like five road games in a row - at Nebraska, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Pitt, and LSU. It took them awhile from there to establish themselves as elite (they only finished 6-5 that season), but it was a move in the right direction and look at what the program became. (Also, it was a dose of reality - one that Boise would likely get if they'd man up like that one season.)

That's nice that FSU did that back then, but it doesn't make financial sense for any team to do that today. Look, that was 30 years ago and the finances of college football and college athletics in general has change drastically since then and no team could afford to play that kind of schedule. While it's nice and idealistic to say who cares they should schedule it anyway, we need to look at this realistically and understand that what FSU did back then doesn't make sense today. Any decision when it comes to scheduling has to make economic sense and that doesn't.
Nov 9, 2010 11:31pm
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Nov 9, 2010 11:43 PM
That's nice? That's a blueprint for bringing your program to the forefront. I still don't understand why the burden of bringing up other programs is somehow the responsibility of the rest of college football. This isn't middle school soccer where everyone gets a ribbon. It's survival of the fittest. If you can't "fund" a few more away games to bolster your SOS that's just too damn bad. Apparently they feel their need to be considered among the country's top football programs shouldn't come with any sacrifice. Fuck that. You want your program to be top notch then you fucking do what's needed and quit looking for some bullshit pansy method to get there. Schedule some away games that get you some respect.
Nov 9, 2010 11:43pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Nov 9, 2010 11:55 PM
krambman;552244 wrote:That's nice that FSU did that back then, but it doesn't make financial sense for any team to do that today. Look, that was 30 years ago and the finances of college football and college athletics in general has change drastically since then and no team could afford to play that kind of schedule. While it's nice and idealistic to say who cares they should schedule it anyway, we need to look at this realistically and understand that what FSU did back then doesn't make sense today. Any decision when it comes to scheduling has to make economic sense and that doesn't.

Nonsense. Pick a side. Do you want a shot at the mythical national championship or do you want the fucking money? If money is the issue, then shut the fuck up and accept your BCS money. If you want the "title", then shut the fuck up and play a schedule in which you would earn a shot. Thats my beef with Boise....they want the best of both worlds, handed to them with a wad of cash. They are lucky to get in on the party playing that ridiculous schedule to begin with. But they get the easy road, the big money, and they still aren't happy? Sorry, no sympathy from me.
Nov 9, 2010 11:55pm
0

0311sdp

Senior Member

580 posts
Nov 10, 2010 12:27 PM
The U did the same thing as Florida State did to establish themselves as a legit title contender, Boise doesn't need to go quite that extreme but why do the elite programs owe them a home and home at this point? Answer they don't and most are not going to do it. Play the Bigs on the road for a few years and prove you belong or join a real conference not move from the WAC to the Moutain West (what's the difference there) Join the PAC 10 or the Big 12. I like to watch Boise play but I don't think that with who they play that they deserve to play for the National title same with TCU who should join the Big 12.
Nov 10, 2010 12:27pm
Little Danny's avatar

Little Danny

Senior Member

4,288 posts
Nov 10, 2010 6:18 PM
0311sdp;552588 wrote:The U did the same thing as Florida State did to establish themselves as a legit title contender, Boise doesn't need to go quite that extreme but why do the elite programs owe them a home and home at this point? Answer they don't and most are not going to do it. Play the Bigs on the road for a few years and prove you belong or join a real conference not move from the WAC to the Moutain West (what's the difference there) Join the PAC 10 or the Big 12. I like to watch Boise play but I don't think that with who they play that they deserve to play for the National title same with TCU who should join the Big 12.

It's not so simple just to "join a conference". A conference is only going to admit a new member if it makes sense from a financial perspective. What's more, many conferences value education and do not want to add in members who they perceive as "beneath them". The P10 is never going to allow Boise to join because it does not add a new market and the snobs in Stanford, Cal and USC would never let a school like Boise join their conference. TCU will not be going to the B12 anytime soon because it does not create a new market for them. They already own Dallas. What's more, the B12 North Teams would blow a gasket if the league adds more teams in Texas. Nebraska, Missouri and Kansas were already ready to bail for that reason (and Nebraska successfully fled).
Nov 10, 2010 6:18pm
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Nov 13, 2010 11:05 PM
Auto Bids:
Oregon
Michigan State (tied to Rose Bowl)
Virginia Tech (tied to Orange Bowl)
West Virginia
Auburn
Nebraska (tied to Fiesta Bowl)
Boise State (Highest Ranked Non AQ in BCS Top 8, tied to Rose Bowl if it loses a team to the BCS Title Game)
LSU (AQ BCS Top 4)

Selection Order
Rose Bowl selects Boise State to replace Oregon (BCS #1)
Sugar Bowl selects LSU to replace Auburn (BCS #2)
Sugar Bowl selects Wisconsin
Orange Bowl selects West Virginia
Fiesta Bowl selects TCU

BCS National Championship
Oregon (12-0, 9-0, Pac-10 Champion) vs. Auburn (12-1, 7-1, SEC Champion)

Rose Bowl
Michigan State (11-1, 7-1, Big Ten Champion) vs. Boise State (12-0, 8-0, At Large)

Fiesta Bowl
Nebraska (12-1, 7-1, Big XII Champion) vs. TCU (12-0, 8-0, At Large)

Sugar Bowl
LSU (11-1, 7-1, At Large) vs. Wisconsin (11-1, 7-1, At Large)

Orange Bowl
Virginia Tech (11-2, 8-0, ACC Champion) vs. West Virginia (9-3, 5-2, Big East Champion)
Nov 13, 2010 11:05pm