This makes me mad- downsized media guide

#26
#26
Originally posted by milohimself@Jun 4, 2005 8:55 PM
I think Utah deserved SOMETHING for going undefeated. And besides that, putting them against a tougher team than Pitt would have solved the debacle of whether or not the best lower-conference teams can compete with the top guns from the BCS conferences.

Boise State and Utah were the two perfect teams to try and prove that last season. Boise State beat a ranked team (Fresno St.), a team that should have been ranked (Oregon St.), and won the WAC with relative ease. Utah went undefeated in their conference, not only beating but absolutely obliterating all their competition. The Utes never won a game by less than two touchdowns, with talent that was roughly on the same level as the rest of the Mountain West (a fact decidedly ignored for the convenience of many on this board).

While I think that BCS conference teams are more deserving of playing in BCS bowls, barring non-BCS teams based on their schedule is complete and utter s**t. If a team from a non-BCS conference goes undefeated and does so in an exceptional manner, give them a shot for God's sake.
[snapback]100883[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Hmmm, never saw that coming. :wassup:
 
#28
#28
milo I see that side of the argument but mark me down in the other camp. I just don't think it's fair to have mid majors in BCS Bowls...IF they don't play any top teams. Now if they have played a good non conference schedule and have some quality wins then I think they could be considered. I don't think they should be in on wins alone... it's not fair to the teams who play in big time conferences and play quality non conference opponents.

but at least we agree that the NCAA is stupid.
 
#29
#29
Originally posted by milohimself@Jun 4, 2005 7:55 PM
While I think that BCS conference teams are more deserving of playing in BCS bowls, barring non-BCS teams based on their schedule is complete and utter s**t. If a team from a non-BCS conference goes undefeated and does so in an exceptional manner, give them a shot for God's sake.
[snapback]100883[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


So, you think the big boys should start padding their schedules with automatic wins.

That's what teams like Utah have every season.

A team that is good in the mid-majors has absolutely no business in the BCS simply because they haven't deserved it. Running up the score on teams ranked below 75 should not be criteria for making it into the BCS above teams who play 5 or 6 ranked teams every year.

The best solution is a super conference. Then the middies can suck hind tit and moan and cry all they want.

This is still America, you should have to earn your keep.
 
#30
#30
Originally posted by vol_freak@Jun 4, 2005 10:22 PM
milo I see that side of the argument but mark me down in the other camp. I just don't think it's fair to have mid majors in BCS Bowls...IF they don't play any top teams. Now if they have played a good non conference schedule and have some quality wins then I think they could be considered. I don't think they should be in on wins alone... it's not fair to the teams who play in big time conferences and play quality non conference opponents.

but at least we agree that the NCAA is stupid.
[snapback]100947[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


The argument the mid-majors are presenting is exactly part of this stupidity.

Force everyone to have the same pages in their media guide. What's next, forcing the teams with large budgets to give part of it to teams with lower budgets.

That's exactly what happened when the powers-that-be forced the issue so that teams like Utah could crash the party.

It's welfare at its worst.
 
#31
#31
Originally posted by milohimself@Jun 4, 2005 8:29 PM
This thread got waaaaaay off-topic...

[snapback]100891[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Tying the media guide issue to the whinning of the mid-majors is exactly on topic.

It's one and the same issue.

What happens when they say all teams have to operate with the same amount of money?

If they can dictate the number of pages in a media guide then eventually they could dictate that all schools have a limit they can spend on football.

It's all wrong.
 
#32
#32
And barring middle teams from playing in the big bowls is going to keep them from ever earning their keep. Most of the "quality" opponnents are busy padding their non-conference schedule with cupcakes citing their conference strength as the reason to not add any potentially dangerous middle teams. This leaves the mid-majors with nobody left to schedule but the crap BCS teams.
 
#33
#33
Originally posted by milohimself@Jun 4, 2005 10:49 PM
And barring middle teams from playing in the big bowls is going to keep them from ever earning their keep. Most of the "quality" opponnents are busy padding their non-conference schedule with cupcakes citing their conference strength as the reason to not add any potentially dangerous middle teams. This leaves the mid-majors with nobody left to schedule but the crap BCS teams.
[snapback]100967[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


That's not true. Teams like Utah should be willing to play 3 top 25 teams as OOC foes if they wish to prove their worth.

Scheduling NC is not exactly a lock to get you a ranked opponent.

Why should teams who play GA, FL, AL, LSU, ARK every year schedule 3 ranked OOC teams if schools like Utah can get in by playing NO ranked teams?

Explain that and then maybe I can see Utah's argument.

But there's no explanation for it.

Everyone has to work their way up. You can't just hand them good bowls because they gripe.
 
#34
#34
Originally posted by OldVol@Jun 4, 2005 8:53 PM
Why should teams who play GA, FL, AL, LSU, ARK every year schedule 3 ranked OOC teams if schools like Utah can get in by playing NO ranked teams?
[snapback]100968[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that top teams usually schedule OOC games with patsy teams instead of teams like Utah. The kind of games I want to see are games like the upcoming Boise St. vs. Georgia matchup. Give the hot mid-major teams a chance to prove their worth. The problem I see is when top teams frequently schedule bottom of the barrel D-IA and D-IAA teams in order to ease up their schedule. It leaves no room for teams like Utah to play the upper crust teams.
 
#35
#35
Originally posted by milohimself@Jun 4, 2005 11:58 PM
The problem I see is when top teams frequently schedule bottom of the barrel D-IA and D-IAA teams in order to ease up their schedule. It leaves no room for teams like Utah to play the upper crust teams.
[snapback]100969[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


The problem with that is that there is absolutely nothing to gain for the big time schools to do this.
 
#36
#36
What he said is a legitimate point. The way things are, like I said in my previous post, give them a freakin' chance before you brush them off! If it takes a BCS bowl for mid-majors to finally be able to prove how good they may or may not be, so be it. But with the way things are, the teams in BCS conferences will be the only ones able to stay on top while the lower conference teams are permanently cast to a lesser status.
 
#37
#37
Originally posted by milohimself@Jun 5, 2005 12:04 AM
What he said is a legitimate point. The way things are, like I said in my previous post, give them a freakin' chance before you brush them off! If it takes a BCS bowl for mid-majors to finally be able to prove how good they may or may not be, so be it. But with the way things are, the teams in BCS conferences will be the only ones able to stay on top while the lower conference teams are permanently cast to a lesser status.
[snapback]100972[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

And your point is. :p
 
#38
#38
If you want to use this argument for why there should be a playoff, I'll listen. But with millions of dollars at stake, don't talk to me about using BCS bowls as a proving ground.
 
#39
#39
Originally posted by milohimself@Jun 4, 2005 10:58 PM
No, I'm saying that top teams usually schedule OOC games with patsy teams instead of teams like Utah. The kind of games I want to see are games like the upcoming Boise St. vs. Georgia matchup. Give the hot mid-major teams a chance to prove their worth. The problem I see is when top teams frequently schedule bottom of the barrel D-IA and D-IAA teams in order to ease up their schedule. It leaves no room for teams like Utah to play the upper crust teams.
[snapback]100969[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


The problem with that argument is; no one can ever tell who's going to be the hot mid-major team. It's usually a different one every couple of years. It used to be Marshall, now where are they?

It isn't logical that the perennial powers can schedule the hot mid-majors, but it is logical that the mid-majors can seek out the top powers EVERY year.

Why would a team from the WAC seek out an OOC from a team in the Sun Belt? Instead of playing Utah St., Utah should go for another Pac-10 or Big 12 opponent.

They've got a half dozen UTSs on their schedule to begin with.

If you look at Utah's results prior to 2003 you'll see that most of the teams from the major conferences beat them regularly.

 
#41
#41
Originally posted by OldVol@Jun 5, 2005 12:12 AM
Sounds a lot like Socialism.  :D
[snapback]100977[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Exactly . . . College football welfare.

Vanderbilt wrote the book on this subject.
 
#42
#42
Originally posted by GAVol@Jun 4, 2005 11:06 PM
If you want to use this argument for why there should be a playoff, I'll listen.  But with millions of dollars at stake, don't talk to me about using BCS bowls as a proving ground.
[snapback]100974[/snapback]​
Click to expand...



50 years ago FSU and Miami were right where the Utahs of the world are today.

So, they scheduled the big boys on away/away basis until they earned their wings. Now, FSU and Miami can demand a home and away with anyone.

This give the middies a chance is nothing short of the socialistic view that invades so much of society.

People have to earn their CHANCE.
 
#43
#43
Originally posted by GAVol@Jun 4, 2005 11:14 PM
Exactly . . . College football welfare.

Vanderbilt wrote the book on this subject.
[snapback]100979[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


The GUY with the BOW TIE.

The reason he wears bow ties is he's afraid someone will hang him with a tie up.
 
#44
#44
Originally posted by GAVol@Jun 4, 2005 9:06 PM
If you want to use this argument for why there should be a playoff, I'll listen.  But with millions of dollars at stake, don't talk to me about using BCS bowls as a proving ground.
[snapback]100974[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

There should be a playoff... I'm pretty sure we, and most all of the college football fanbase in the country, agrees with a playoff.

But there has GOT to be a way to allow the college football landscape to shift. The way things are, there is a caste system where you see noone but the same teams enjoy success year after year after year. The top programs only have slumps of mediocrity, but what about a mid-major that's on to a legitimate turnaround and is deserving to try and cement a spot for themselves? They can't be allowed to play in bigtime bowls according to what you guys say, because they can't schedule top-tier opponnents because the top teams are too busy scheduling D-IA's ranked in the 100's and D-IAA's instead.
 
#45
#45
Originally posted by GAVol@Jun 4, 2005 9:14 PM
Exactly . . . College football welfare.

Vanderbilt wrote the book on this subject.
[snapback]100979[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

What? No. I just want top teams to grow a pair, stop intentionally scheduling crappy teams in their OOC games (I frankly don't care how strong ones conference is), figure out a way to effectively schedule GOOD mid-major teams, simeltaneously giving mid-majors their proving ground.

That is my whole arguement. Is that too much to ask?
 
#46
#46
Originally posted by milohimself@Jun 5, 2005 12:24 AM
What? No. I just want top teams to grow a pair, stop intentionally scheduling crappy teams in their OOC games (I frankly don't care how strong ones conference is), figure out a way to effectively schedule GOOD mid-major teams, simeltaneously giving mid-majors their proving ground.

[snapback]100987[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


So let's say last year that Tennessee got rid of UNLV or La Tech and added tougher teams and lost 3 or 4 games in the regular season while the Utah's of the world still had their easy schedule and went undefeated. Adding tougher OOC games when you play in a tough conference would just be stupid IMO. It would just help the lesser teams even more in the polls.

As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the NCAA started making the bigger teams schedule tougher and let the others play easy.
 
#47
#47
Originally posted by milohimself@Jun 5, 2005 12:24 AM
What? No. I just want top teams to grow a pair, stop intentionally scheduling crappy teams in their OOC games (I frankly don't care how strong ones conference is), figure out a way to effectively schedule GOOD mid-major teams, simeltaneously giving mid-majors their proving ground.

That is my whole arguement. Is that too much to ask?
[snapback]100987[/snapback]​
Click to expand...



But Milo, which mid majors should get scheduled for OOC games? You keep knocking teams for scheduling crappy teams, but aren't those the very teams that need the big check and exposure of playing BCS schools?
 
#48
#48
If we schedule a mid-major, and we are supposed to be that good, then we should win the game anyways. A truly top tier team should have no reservations about scheduling a mid-major.

Then, in the event said top team loses to said mid-major, it provides for two things: A platform for said mid-major to begin to establish itself as a top team, and ultimately movement in the college football landscape, which is what I would like to see.
 
#49
#49
Originally posted by GAVol@Jun 4, 2005 9:33 PM
But Milo, which mid majors should get scheduled for OOC games?  You keep knocking teams for scheduling crappy teams, but aren't those the very teams that need the big check and exposure of playing BCS schools?
[snapback]100992[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

No, I'm talking about teams scheduling truly crappy teams when they SHOULD be scheduling mid-majors that are looking to prove themselves. I realize that games are scheduled years in advance, and hot mids can fizzle out in that time, but I'm also suggesting a more efficient way of scheduling tougher mids.
 
#50
#50
I agree to a point, but I just don't think it's the responsibility of an SEC or Big 12 school that has 5 or 6 built in toughies to schedule mid-majors for the purpose of providing a stage.

I do think that there needs to be a rule instituted to restrict how often you can schedule 1AA teams.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top