This makes me mad- downsized media guide

[milohimself]

Originally posted by GAVol@Jun 4, 2005 9:42 PM
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.

[snapback]101006[/snapback]​

It is not only a proving ground for the middies; It is yet another toughie for the big teams to prove their worth come BCS time.

 

[GAVol]

Originally posted by milohimself@Jun 5, 2005 12:52 AM
It is not only a proving ground for the middies; It is yet another toughie for the big teams to prove their worth come BCS time.

[snapback]101016[/snapback]​

I disagree . . . If Tennessee beats Utah, people are just going to say that Utah isn't quite as good as people thought. It would be viewed about the same as a win over Arkansas.

 

[milohimself]

That might be true... But it depends from case to case. It can happen to big teams, too. It happened to Purdue after their initial streak, if I remember right. Everybody was riding high on the Boilermakers' winning streak, Kyle Orton was the frontrunner for the Heisman. Then they lose once and I remember a pretty steep drop. Of course, they proved to be pretty crappy after that anyhow, but the point remains the same.

 

[JSB2277]

Originally posted by Orangewhiteblood@Jun 4, 2005 9:18 AM
"No thanks, I would rather go to bama where they give you money."

[snapback]100760[/snapback]​

Classic..... :bow:

 

[OldVol]

You can't have it both ways in this argument.

Either you agree teams play in the BCS because of their true desert, or you give teams like Utah a chance just out of the goodness of your hearts. Which is what happened last year.

If you want the biggies to schedule the tough mid-majors, point them out.

In the years prior to 03 Utah had 2 seasons where they went 5/6 and 4/7.

There is not team out there like you're describing who has won 10 games or more for a decade and are being denied.

If you become a proven winner you get the shot, if you don't, then you shouldn't get the shot.

There is no team that fits any kind of long-term profile deserving of this social experiment.

 

[milohimself]

Originally posted by OldVol@Jun 5, 2005 7:13 AM
You can't have it both ways in this argument.

Either you agree teams play in the BCS because of their true desert, or you give teams like Utah a chance just out of the goodness of your hearts. Which is what happened last year.

I think Utah deserved a shot. I personally believed they could have competed with just about any team in the country, including Auburn.

If you want the biggies to schedule the tough mid-majors, point them out.

In the years prior to 03 Utah had 2 seasons where they went 5/6 and 4/7.

There is not team out there like you're describing who has won 10 games or more for a decade and are being denied.

If you become a proven winner you get the shot, if you don't, then you shouldn't get the shot.

There is no team that fits any kind of long-term profile deserving of this social experiment.

[snapback]101063[/snapback]​

Boise State - 64-12 since 1999
Bowling Green - 37-12 since 2001
Fresno State - 38-16 since 2001
Marshall - 94-23 since 1996
Toledo - 46-16 since 2000

There's five.

 

[surrealvol]

Originally posted by OldVol@Jun 4, 2005 2:35 PM
This topic just pops my cork.

This is akin to the moronic, asinine activity that's been going on for about 4 years now. It started when the mid-majors launched a campaign to break into the BCS games without actually playing their way there.

It led to the SOS component of the BCS formula being removed (one of the few parts that actually made sense).

With the congressional hearings that threatened government intervention if the big boys didn't let the little fellahs' play.

I call it welfare for the football challenged.

I know there are some who will cry foul here, but Utah had absolutely no business being in a BCS game last year. They may have been better than half the teams there, but they did not play anyone of note.

They played Pitt (who also had no business being in the big dance, because the Big Easy just got too easy, and that's another topic for another thread) who did not beat a single ranked opponent all year, on top of which, they lost to the worst Nebraska team in the last 50 years, they lost to UConn, for crying out loud, and they also lost to an unranked Syracuse. So, Utah's win over the Panther's proved nothing.

Now for Utah's claim fo fame: Their best regular season win was Texas A&M. We all know how weak they were. The Vols could have beaten them by 50 had they not chosen to empty the bench. Their next best regular season win was a 6/6 NC team. Now, before anyone cries, "Oh, but they beat them by 30." Please don't. Virginia beat them by 30, and they didn't make it to the BCS.

Utah's Opponents records were as follows:

vs. Texas A&M (7-5)
9/11 @ Arizona (3-8)
9/18 @ Utah State (3-8)
9/25 vs. *Air Force (5-6)
10/1 @ *New Mexico (7-5)
10/16 vs. North Carolina (6-6)
10/23 vs. *Nevada-Las Vegas (2-9)
10/30 @ *San Diego State (4-7)
11/6 vs. *Colorado State (4-7) 
11/13 @ *Wyoming (7-5)
11/20 vs. *Brigham Young (5-6)
1/1 vs. Pittsburgh (8-4)

That's a combined record of 53 wins and 72 losses.

Now, let’s look at some deserving teams who got left out.

Georgia beat the #16 team in a blowout and lost only to UT and Auburn and got stuck with the Outback.

Iowa beat #17 and #20 by a combined total of 50 points while losing to # 19 and #14.

As I said, this is football welfare.

This is why I've been a proponent of a Super Conference.

Dump the NCAA and start a Super Football Conference that eliminates all of the stupid pansy games.

Take the top 6 conferences, expand them all to 12 that aren't already, and let 'em all play one another for OOC games and that would be great football.

Each conference would play 8 conference games and play a rotating OOC schedule that included every team in the Super conference.

At season's end the teams with the best records in each conference would play a conference championship.

Take the 6 winners and place the 4 highest ranked teams on a bye.

Then the 2 lower ranked conference champions and the 6 runners up play a first round play off.

Then the 4 winners play the top 4.

Then a semifinal round

Then the championship.

Level the playing field by limiting the size of the media guide. Puhleaaazzeee!!!

__
    __
        __
            Gettin' off my soap box now.

[snapback]100812[/snapback]​

Amen, brother! You got this one right. I would vote one hundred times for the Super Conference deal. The NCAA is about money, and we all know that. Dump the NCAA and go with what's best for football in general. To heck with trying to make everything equal for everyone. That's just a bit like communism, isn't it?

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by milohimself@Jun 5, 2005 1:34 PM
I think Utah deserved a shot. I personally believed they could have competed with just about any team in the country, including Auburn.
Boise State - 64-12 since 1999
Bowling Green - 37-12 since 2001
Fresno State - 38-16 since 2001
Marshall - 94-23 since 1996
Toledo - 46-16 since 2000

There's five.

[snapback]101091[/snapback]​

And when I have more time I'll come back and show you that not a one of those teams, Utah 04 included, deserves diddly based on the competition they played.

Oh, wait, I've already done that with Utah.

So proving again with the others would just be a waste of time.

So, I guess you think Boise St. got screwed too. Because it's obvious they played a better schedule than Utah.

Let's see, who would you have prefered we left out of the BCS last year, Texas, Cal?

Yeah, right!

 

[milohimself]

Boise State didn't get screwed. They are playing a game against Georgia. Games like that are all I am talking about. Not BCS, just get the top teams and mid-majors playing against eachother. I don't see why you have such an issue with that. If the mid-majors are all just over-inflated like you believe, then it's just another W for the big guys.

And as for the Rose Bowl... I believe you know what my stance is. I love the Longhorns and enjoyed the heck out of watching them beat Michigan (who I despise more than any other team in college football), but I believe they had no business making that game in the first place. Don't care if Cal lost to Texas Tech. Cal had done nothing wrong up to the end of the season to lose their BCS bid.