Quote: How stupid does Michigan's Athletic Director look right now? #- Lloyd Carr was fired because he couldn't beat Ohio State, but at least they beat other Big 10, Big 12, and SEC teams. Heck, Carr's last win as Head Coach came against Urban Meyer & Tim Tebow's Gators in the Capital One Bowl. Michigan was always respectable under Carr.
Quote: And also, beating a team in a BCS game (for your only big win of the year), when they don't care because they're not playing for the title, and playing for a national championship is completely different.
That is the biggest BS argument I have ever heard. I've never heard of a team not excited to play in a BCS game. Hell if anything Alabama should have used the excuse of not playing in the title game to fire them up to crush Utah
I happened last year to Alabama...Florida a couple of years ago...when you Lose the game that will get you the national title..it is a big let down no matter where you go.
It's total BS to think otherwise.
The way that should be fixed is to go to the +1 format.
That way all teams will have motivation to win their bowl game.
That one extra game solves all this BSC mess and makes it a BCS.....just seed the bowls.
The current BCS standings are as follows...in this example we will say these were the final standings heading in to bowl season.
1. Fla 2. Ala 3. Tx 4. TCU 5. Cinci 6.Boise 7. Ga tech 8. LSU 9. USC 10. Iowa
So it would match up like this...
Anyother Bowl.....Fla v Iowa Rose.... Ala v USC Orange.. Tx v LSU Cotton.. TCU v Ga Tech Fiesta.. Cinci v Boise
Sugar....gets the title game
After that, all you have to do is rotate which bowl gets the title game and which bowls get what seeding....and decide what other bowl gets in to the playoff mix......Outback??
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Too much potential for more than 2 teams to be left undefeated, and the possibility that the playoff bowl performance leaves the former ranked #1 team with an ugly win and knocked down to #3 after the old 2 & 3 tear it up. And if there is no "re-ranking" or re-seeding between playoff week and Plus One Day, why do it at all ?
I'm all for a playoff but this is too deep. Nobody has ever come from below #4 to win any title,....that's all the deeper we need to go.
This season, while near over, still has way to many important games left that will/might/can change things up. The Little Guys need some protection, but I'm not going off the cliff until I see how this shakes out.
Boise does not deserve to go to a national title game this year unless all the other current contenders have 2 losses....their schedule doesn't allow it. if they have a problem with it, join the MWC (who should accept them with open arms as they attempt to bypass the Big East).
However, if a MWC team who played 2 decent BCS schools OOC and went undefeated this year....I would have gladly put them in over ANY 1-loss BCS school. TCU's schedule last year would have allowed it...I'm on the fence if this year's schedule should. Utah and BYU's schedule allowed it....however, they both lost games, so it's a moot point.
Houston would have been an interesting situation as well...I would have said no because the C-USA teams who were supposed to be good this year (Tulsa), just didn't show up.
Ok, now for some more fun......conjecture:
Imagine if the MWC decided it wanted to be a football power conference and took in Houston and Boise though and relegated 2 of their non-performers to the WAC and C-USA?
Both those schools have a good football history and have been good recently....it would give the MWC 5 schools that could be ranked in the top25 any given year (figure 3 or 4 actually do).....definitely would usurp the Big East and honestly, I think they'd be better than the ACC at that point.
Quote: While I mentioned Arizona-Oregon Pac 10 matchup earlier, I neglected Stanford,...they could still win out and get to the Rose Bowl, I believe.
count out USC at your own risk...it's the Pac10 and crazy things happen.
USC still plays Stanford and Arizona....so, they can bring them back to the pack. I don't think they are good enough to win out, but technically, if they can get a little help from Oregon State or Arizona on Oregon, they are still in this thing. (just as amazing as it is that Ohio State can get there too after losing to Purdue)
Ohio State is in if they beat Iowa,...period. Can even then lose to Michigan,.....
Sorry about neglecting USC, but they don't own anymore tiebreakers after the Arizona-Oregon game,...like you said--they need help.
I'm looking for Pitt to beat Cinncinati. Don't know why,...now, if the 'Cats get out unbeaten, maybe look for them to play Boise. "They'll" do this on purpose, just to create controversy.
If any "Other" school has a legitimate beef, I think at this point it would be TCU. I have NOT watched a down they've played, though.
Still loooking like SEC vs. Texas, regardless of the Little 3.
Boise State athletic director Gene Bleymaier is all but begging for a major opponent – any major opponent – to play his Broncos, particularly in 2011. He can hardly get his calls returned. Not by the SEC. Not by the Big Ten. Not by anyone.
Bleymaier is making a nearly unheard of offer in college football scheduling – Boise will bring its popular, high-profile, top-10 team to any stadium in any town to play any big name team in America in 2011. And they don’t have to return the date in Idaho.
So far, no one has bit.
ESPN has even become involved trying to broker a deal that will almost assuredly be nationally televised. Still no luck.
It’s the kind of non-conference game that should have schools salivating. Boise delivers an opponent that will challenge your players, exposure that will extend your brand and a home game that will excite your fans.
“It’s been surprising how many big schools have not been receptive of us coming to their place,” Bleymaier said.
This is the conundrum for the upstart program and every non-major conference school trying to battle for national respect.
Boise is 44-4 over the past four seasons, including 4-1 against major conference opponents. Yet that doesn’t guarantee the Broncos a slot in a big money BCS bowl due to the level of competition they play in the Western Athletic Conference.
The school acknowledges it needs to play tougher teams. Yet how can they beat quality opponents if quality opponents won’t play them?
What Boise is left with is games like Friday’s here. They traveled 2,000 miles to beat Louisiana Tech 45-35, a conference game, and improve to 9-0 on the season. For that they practically had to apologize because it wasn’t a blowout.
“That’s how it always is when we play,” coach Chris Petersen said. “It’s never good enough. It’s good enough for us, we won. If you’re looking to win by so much, if you’re looking for style points, if you’re looking to play for the polls, which we’re not, it’s not going to be good enough.”
Petersen has had it with arguing about whether the Broncos deserve a BCS bid. All he can do is win games. His team beat the one major opponent that would play them this year – a 19-8 victory over Oregon in the season opener.
Yet he deals with questions about who his team plays in the WAC. Boise won consecutive games this year by a combined score of 99-16 and dropped from No. 4 to No. 7 in the BCS standings. Petersen said he wouldn’t be surprised if they dropped again this week. They may again put together a perfect season only to be left out.
The only answer is to play better non-conference opponents. Next season they have games against Oregon State and Virginia Tech. After that though, things may be drying up. In 2011, they can’t get one game, let alone two.
So are the big schools scared of playing Boise? Avoiding tough non-conference opponents is the new trend in college football thanks to the BCS. The championship system discourages dangerous, if exciting, out-of-league scheduling as it continues to sap the life out of the regular season.
Or, perhaps, this is how the major conferences are going to deal with the Broncos.
Put it this way, if no one good agrees to play Boise then Boise can’t beat anyone any good. And if Boise can’t beat anyone any good, then how can they ever argue they’re deserving of a spot in a $17.5 million BCS bowl?
“I don’t think it’s collusion,” Bleymaier said. “I think it’s athletic directors going to their football coaches and saying, ‘hey, what about playing this school?’ If coaches had their druthers they’d play sisters of the poor 11 times.”
Still, the frustration is obvious.
“Some of those schools that are saying ‘let them play our schedule’ won’t play us,” Bleymaier said.
That no one will accept Boise State’s offer is absurd. This isn’t a decade ago, when playing the program was no-win situation. If you won, you were supposed to win because no one had heard of them. If you lost (which was likely) it was a disaster.
There can’t be any college fans left who don’t know how good Petersen’s team is. A game against Boise would bolster anyone’s home schedule. It would be a huge game. The television exposure would be invaluable.
Maybe Florida and Texas don’t need a game with Boise (they can ride non-conference cupcakes to the title game). A middle of the pack Big Ten or Big 12 team certainly does though. Boise’s program is more famous than all of them – the Broncos are on true national television seven times this season alone.
Yet no one wants the game. They’ll schedule mismatches from the old Division I-AA instead (and charge full ticket price). Bleymaier has to keep his composure as he listens to the critics.
Last year Utah went 13-0 yet didn’t have a chance to play for the BCS title. At a Congressional subcommittee hearing University of Nebraska chancellor and BCS figurehead Harvey Perlman was asked what the Utes could’ve done differently.
“They could have played the schedule Nebraska did,” Perlman said.
While it’s par for the course for the BCS to have a leader who has no idea how college football works, what can a Boise State do in the face of that kind of ignorance?
Would Boise accept an invitation to join the Big 12?
“Yeah, of course,” Bleymaier said. “If we were in their conference we’d play that schedule.”
Not only is that not happening they can’t get one game against the league. While Bleymaier won’t say specifically which schools have turned him down, he will say that the open date remains – Sept. 3, 2011. The offer stands, the Broncos will go anywhere.
And, lo and behold, guess which major conference school happens to have an open date? How about Harvey Perlman’s Nebraska, the one-time powerhouse which could use all the big attention grabbing games it can get these days?
Don’t hold your breath on that one – chicken or collusion, the result is the same.
Quote: Try calling someone for 2016-2020 and you'll find someone.
And hope they aren't having a down year ... I can imagine them scheduling someone like Notre Dame 6 years ago, and getting them this year. Then everyone saying they played a weak Notre Dame team.
And are you saying that every team in every major conference is completely booked until 2015?
Not completely booked, but they book their big OOC games 8-10 years in advance. Then they add their cupcakes 1-3 years in advance.
Ohio State has their big OOC games booked through 2019.
Alabama through 2014. Arkansas through 2016. Auburn - 2018 Florida- 2015 Georgia- 2016 Kentucky - Basically forever (it'll always be Louisville) LSU- 2016 Miss State- 2013 Ole Miss- 2011 South Carolina- 2015 Tennessee- 2019 Vandy- 2013
There's the SEC for you. As you have seen by Alabama playing VaTech the past few years, you know they won't back down. Why not call them and ask them for a game in 2015?
Too much potential for more than 2 teams to be left undefeated, and the possibility that the playoff bowl performance leaves the former ranked #1 team with an ugly win and knocked down to #3 after the old 2 & 3 tear it up. And if there is no "re-ranking" or re-seeding between playoff week and Plus One Day, why do it at all ?
I'm all for a playoff but this is too deep. Nobody has ever come from below #4 to win any title,....that's all the deeper we need to go.
This season, while near over, still has way to many important games left that will/might/can change things up. The Little Guys need some protection, but I'm not going off the cliff until I see how this shakes out.
Good start though.
It isn't a playoff...that isn't happening...+1 is about as good as we are going to get so I see no point in constantly calling for it.
This at least allows some chance for the mid level guys to lay some claim.
I also think any conference without a conference championship game should get docked big time in the standings. They more or less get to skate through without having that last pressure packed title game with everything on the line.
It would be pretty nice if Fla and Ala could just finish out their season...with the meeting being for the national championship rather than the SEC crown where one gets to go and one gets the 3rd or 4th option.
Those conferences need to get to 12 teams to meet the NCAA guideline or be viewed as non-compliant conferences.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
So then there is a rule that you can only have one big out of conference game a year? Va Tech played Alabama AND Nebraska this year....
And second.. this isn't a big out of conference game anyway. It's an inferior team that isn't allowed to play for a national championship because it isn't good enough... so why should Alabama playing VA Tech prohibit Alabama from also playing Boise State? I mean really, they aren't that good. Sort of like Utah wasn't that good....
I never said they aren't good. In a one game situation, they can beat anyone. However, if they played the SEC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac 10, etc. schedule, and had to play those teams week after week after week, they wouldn't be able to get out of it with even 1 loss, much less go undefeated.
How many teams play more than 1 big school OOC? You named Alabama, that's one.
Fact is, if Boise wanted to schedule a big time school for 2011, they should have scheduled it about 2003, not 2009.
Okay, so the point still remains the same. The teams that are doing it (although the majority still don't), already have their two games lined up for awhile.
Kudos to Boise for trying to schedule someone, but you can't try to do it 2 years in advance. I'm willing to guarantee, the first school they called trying to set up a game for like 2017 would do it.
What Boise is doing is the equivilent of trying to get a Super Bowl ticket from TicketMaster 3 days before the game.
I have no problem with "someone" laying down the law to the conferences, but doubt at all that it will ever come from the NCAA,...
There should also be severe poll penalties for playing any 1-AA team, but there aren't.
Even if the conferences all had titles games, the problem in the SEC would still exist,...that's why I'm kinda hoping Texas stubs their toe, so we can see how these polls react when Florida and Alabama play a game that shows they are still 1 and 2, regardless of the outcome.
Good chatting with you,....how's UT Chatt looking in the FCS ? I know my Dogs and Penguins are out,....
Quote: I happened last year to Alabama...Florida a couple of years ago...when you Lose the game that will get you the national title..it is a big let down no matter where you go.
It's total BS to think otherwise.
Sorry Peen but you SEC fans are just trying to make an excuse for Alabama being DOMINATED by Utah.
OSU fans I have some recruiting news for you all. Jordan Hicks out of Lokota West High School was impressed with his visit at OSU. He's being recruited by USC and Texas. This kid is a STUD!!! We can not afford to let this one slip out of ohio!
Quote: There should also be severe poll penalties for playing any 1-AA team, but there aren't.
Colleges should be allowed to play them, the thing is they should be limited to two and they should have to be the first two games. Colleges don't get preseason games, they don't get scrimmages against other schools... they should be allowed to have some kind of warm up in which the AA school can still get some financial reward for taking the beating...
I don't buy it,...agree on the fact there are no preseason games, though. I doubt any of the Big Boys play more than 2 anyhow. Good idea about them being the initial two games of the year.
Plenty of cash to go around,...I would pay Youngstown State to stay OUT of Columbus, rather than play, win by 40, and bear the brunt of all the negative "weak" OOC discussion. Besides, I wouldn't want an FCS team taking a poll hit with these automatic losses. That usually doesn't happen however. So it's a wash,...
Some of the 1-AA's should/could move up too.
Not a big deal,...I'm just not in favor of FBS playing FCS,...same as FCS playing D-II's and sometimes III's. Of course, they have playoffs, so I guess it's a different animal.
I just think it's sort of unfair for OSU to take the field for the very first time against anybody but themselves and have to play USC.. or Va Tech and Alabama.. or whatever. The way every single game in college football is so vitally important, it just seems like a tough way to "get your feet wet"...
Granted, it's equally unfair since both are probably doing it... I don't know, I don't have a firm answer, I do, however, find it really stupid for a D1 school to stop in the middle of conference play and go up against a D2 school.. what's the point in that?
Quote: I do, however, find it really stupid for a D1 school to stop in the middle of conference play and go up against a D2 school.. what's the point in that?
I wouldn't be so "anti" if it weren't for the fact that--like DC said--every other game is just too important,....and I would not want to be The Citadel, or YSU, or UT-Chatt, be undefeated and #1 in the FCS poll, then go play Florida in Week 10 and lose my # 1 seed or guaranteed home playoff berth.
Quote: I do, however, find it really stupid for a D1 school to stop in the middle of conference play and go up against a D2 school.. what's the point in that?
Quote: I do, however, find it really stupid for a D1 school to stop in the middle of conference play and go up against a D2 school.. what's the point in that?
Money.
The thrill of a Appalachian State-Michigan game.
That was the first game of the season. I personally don't have a problem with a D1 scheduling a "scrimmage" before they get into real play, others do. My point was about teams that get 6 games into the season and THEN play a D2.. I know it's money for the small school, I just don't see the point in it.
Quote: I do, however, find it really stupid for a D1 school to stop in the middle of conference play and go up against a D2 school.. what's the point in that?
Money.
The thrill of a Appalachian State-Michigan game.
That was the first game of the season. I personally don't have a problem with a D1 scheduling a "scrimmage" before they get into real play, others do. My point was about teams that get 6 games into the season and THEN play a D2.. I know it's money for the small school, I just don't see the point in it.
i don't think that it is done on purpose. If your conference has an odd number of schools, then there is going to be an odd team out each week in conference play.
And scheduling another D1 school during conference play is not that easy. My guess is that most teams would avoid it if it was not inevitable.
There's no money involved in an App State-Michigan game ... for App there is, but Michigan would do much better scheduling any BCS conference team. For Michigan, it's purely a Win column builder.
Quote: How stupid does Michigan's Athletic Director look right now? - Lloyd Carr was fired because he couldn't beat Ohio State, but at least they beat other Big 10, Big 12, and SEC teams. Heck, Carr's last win as Head Coach came against Urban Meyer & Tim Tebow's Gators in the Capital One Bowl. Michigan was always respectable under Carr.
Look at Michigan now. - One Big 10 win (and they were lucky to get that one). Rich Rod has turned that program into a complete joke. - Michigan is to the Big 10 what Vanderbilt is to the SEC.
Is Rich Rod gone after this season?
Not a chance. He had to play last season with a slow, inaccurate, pro style QB. Year one was pretty much lost when Mallett decided he didn't want to stay and run essentially the same system Petrino has him running (go figure).
They will be fine in the long run. Forcier has been pretty damn good as a true freshman.....if RR had him last year, there wouldn't be so many questions. (5-5) doesn't look great but they're really close. OT loss to MSU, 2 point loss on the road @ Iowa, 2 point loss last week. They're 11 points away from being (8-2). I'd be lying if I didn't say they really need this one against Wisconsin but it's still a work in progress.
They still have issues on defense but Forcier will probably be poised to make a big jump next season and be that much better. If they can plug some holes on defense, I think they can win 9-10 games next season and be in a position to challenge in the BCS in 2011. The Big Ten continues to remain pretty average overall. If Michigan was just a hair better in a few spots, they would be a 8-9 win team without much trouble.
Remains to be seen (on projected records, etc.) but firing him now would be silly. It's his first year with a dual threat QB. Unfortunately Michigan just did not have the personnel right from the start. Carr got out at precisely the right time based on the performance of many of these defensive players.
There's no money involved in an App State-Michigan game ... for App there is, but Michigan would do much better scheduling any BCS conference team. For Michigan, it's purely a Win column builder.
Quote: They will be fine in the long run. Forcier has been pretty damn good as a true freshman.....if RR had him last year, there wouldn't be so many questions. (5-5) doesn't look great but they're really close. OT loss to MSU, 2 point loss on the road @ Iowa, 2 point loss last week. They're 11 points away from being (8-2). I'd be lying if I didn't say they really need this one against Wisconsin but it's still a work in progress.
They still have issues on defense but Forcier will probably be poised to make a big jump next season and be that much better. If they can plug some holes on defense, I think they can win 9-10 games next season and be in a position to challenge in the BCS in 2011. The Big Ten continues to remain pretty average overall. If Michigan was just a hair better in a few spots, they would be a 8-9 win team without much trouble.
my goodness.....could you imagine trying to convince a UM fan during the Lloyd Carr years that they would be satisfied with the chance at becoming a 8-9 win team and just a shade better than the average big10 team?
was it really just a few years ago that UM was #2 in the country and a regular 10-11 win team?
I want every OSU fan that even thinks about firing Tressel at any point to reread both of the above over and over until you realize how good we have it.
Quote: They will be fine in the long run. Forcier has been pretty damn good as a true freshman.....if RR had him last year, there wouldn't be so many questions. (5-5) doesn't look great but they're really close. OT loss to MSU, 2 point loss on the road @ Iowa, 2 point loss last week. They're 11 points away from being (8-2). I'd be lying if I didn't say they really need this one against Wisconsin but it's still a work in progress.
They still have issues on defense but Forcier will probably be poised to make a big jump next season and be that much better. If they can plug some holes on defense, I think they can win 9-10 games next season and be in a position to challenge in the BCS in 2011. The Big Ten continues to remain pretty average overall. If Michigan was just a hair better in a few spots, they would be a 8-9 win team without much trouble.
my goodness.....could you imagine trying to convince a UM fan during the Lloyd Carr years that they would be satisfied with the chance at becoming a 8-9 win team and just a shade better than the average big10 team?
was it really just a few years ago that UM was #2 in the country and a regular 10-11 win team?
I want every OSU fan that even thinks about firing Tressel at any point to reread both of the above over and over until you realize how good we have it.
There is a difference between being satisfied with 8-9 wins a year and realizing that it takes a few years to completely change a collegiate football team and get your own players and system in place. If within 2 or 3 years Michigan isn't consistently winning and competing for the Big Ten Championship and the BCS, then there will be no one who is "satisfied."
but it's the defense that is letting you down, not the offense.
RR changed the offense, the defense should have been fine....it's UM, you are supposed to reload. I understand the offense being given 2 years to get under order due to the complete philosophical shift, but RR has never had a great defense in the past and it doesn't look to be changing at UM.
Quote: but it's the defense that is letting you down, not the offense.
RR changed the offense, the defense should have been fine....it's UM, you are supposed to reload. I understand the offense being given 2 years to get under order due to the complete philosophical shift, but RR has never had a great defense in the past and it doesn't look to be changing at UM.
That is true, and Carr left the defensive cupboard pretty bare. Michigan's defense is changing too with Greg Robinson taking over and installing a hybrid 3-4 defense. Right now they don't have the players up front that are big enough for it, and need to get some playmakers in the secondary.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
