*** Official 2015 College Football Thread *** (2 Viewers)

[sho nuff]

ETA: To your example, a guy predicting the B1G wins and then a MN fan saying he hopes it plays out like that (because the OP's prediction had his team winning) seems to have nothing to do with anything. Is it really hard to understand that a MN fan would want their team to win?

A Wisconsin fan also did it and the prediction had his team losing.

Who?The fake Packer fan "Gopher State"?

 

[GDogg]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/big-ten-discusses-beefing-football-235249818--ncaaf.htmlDid not see this posted...hopefully others follow suit...but doubting it.

Not a chance unless the new committee decides to put a substantial emphasis on OOC games.

UCLA, Southern Cal and Notre Dame already do this.

 

[The Commish]

ETA: To your example, a guy predicting the B1G wins and then a MN fan saying he hopes it plays out like that (because the OP's prediction had his team winning) seems to have nothing to do with anything. Is it really hard to understand that a MN fan would want their team to win?

A Wisconsin fan also did it and the prediction had his team losing.

Are you talking about "Gopher State"? Not surprised if that's who it was. I'm not sure I even agree that this is comparable at any level the more I read that thread and context of what's going on.

 

[The Commish]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/big-ten-discusses-beefing-football-235249818--ncaaf.htmlDid not see this posted...hopefully others follow suit...but doubting it.

Not a chance unless the new committee decides to put a substantial emphasis on OOC games.

UCLA, Southern Cal and Notre Dame already do this.

Michigan had never done it until 2007. Crap happens sometimes and that's all that can be found. I'm pissed they are doing it again in 2014.

 

[Moe.]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/big-ten-discusses-beefing-football-235249818--ncaaf.htmlDid not see this posted...hopefully others follow suit...but doubting it.

Not a chance unless the new committee decides to put a substantial emphasis on OOC games.

UCLA, Southern Cal and Notre Dame already do this.

Michigan had never done it until 2007. Crap happens sometimes and that's all that can be found. I'm pissed they are doing it again in 2014.

Didn't they lose to Appalachian State in either 2003 or 2004?

 

[GDogg]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/big-ten-discusses-beefing-football-235249818--ncaaf.htmlDid not see this posted...hopefully others follow suit...but doubting it.

Not a chance unless the new committee decides to put a substantial emphasis on OOC games.

UCLA, Southern Cal and Notre Dame already do this.

Michigan had never done it until 2007. Crap happens sometimes and that's all that can be found. I'm pissed they are doing it again in 2014.

Didn't they lose to Appalachian State in either 2003 or 2004?

2007.You never say never, but UCLA seems pretty committed to the way they schedule.

 

[Moe.]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/big-ten-discusses-beefing-football-235249818--ncaaf.htmlDid not see this posted...hopefully others follow suit...but doubting it.

Not a chance unless the new committee decides to put a substantial emphasis on OOC games.

UCLA, Southern Cal and Notre Dame already do this.

Michigan had never done it until 2007. Crap happens sometimes and that's all that can be found. I'm pissed they are doing it again in 2014.

Didn't they lose to Appalachian State in either 2003 or 2004?

2007.You never say never, but UCLA seems pretty committed to the way they schedule.

Damn, I could have sworn that was either my freshmen or sophomore year of college. Time flies I guess. I find it hard to get too fired up about this as a fan. I know there's a big difference between the worst d1 schools and the best fcs schools but I just can't make myself care. It's so beneficial for the smaller schools it's hard to fault them for doing it.

 

[The Commish]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/big-ten-discusses-beefing-football-235249818--ncaaf.htmlDid not see this posted...hopefully others follow suit...but doubting it.

Not a chance unless the new committee decides to put a substantial emphasis on OOC games.

UCLA, Southern Cal and Notre Dame already do this.

Michigan had never done it until 2007. Crap happens sometimes and that's all that can be found. I'm pissed they are doing it again in 2014.

Didn't they lose to Appalachian State in either 2003 or 2004?

2007

 

[The Commish]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/big-ten-discusses-beefing-football-235249818--ncaaf.htmlDid not see this posted...hopefully others follow suit...but doubting it.

Not a chance unless the new committee decides to put a substantial emphasis on OOC games.

UCLA, Southern Cal and Notre Dame already do this.

Michigan had never done it until 2007. Crap happens sometimes and that's all that can be found. I'm pissed they are doing it again in 2014.

Didn't they lose to Appalachian State in either 2003 or 2004?

2007.You never say never, but UCLA seems pretty committed to the way they schedule.

Damn, I could have sworn that was either my freshmen or sophomore year of college. Time flies I guess. I find it hard to get too fired up about this as a fan. I know there's a big difference between the worst d1 schools and the best fcs schools but I just can't make myself care. It's so beneficial for the smaller schools it's hard to fault them for doing it.

It benefits the schools but is absolutely brutal for the players. I think it sucks on all levels.

 

[GDogg]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/big-ten-discusses-beefing-football-235249818--ncaaf.html

Did not see this posted...hopefully others follow suit...but doubting it.

Not a chance unless the new committee decides to put a substantial emphasis on OOC games.

UCLA, Southern Cal and Notre Dame already do this.

Michigan had never done it until 2007. Crap happens sometimes and that's all that can be found. I'm pissed they are doing it again in 2014.

Didn't they lose to Appalachian State in either 2003 or 2004?

2007.You never say never, but UCLA seems pretty committed to the way they schedule.

Damn, I could have sworn that was either my freshmen or sophomore year of college. Time flies I guess. I find it hard to get too fired up about this as a fan. I know there's a big difference between the worst d1 schools and the best fcs schools but I just can't make myself care. It's so beneficial for the smaller schools it's hard to fault them for doing it.

Financially, sure, but what benefits did the Savannah State Tigers football players get from having their brains beat in by Oklahoma St. and Florida St. to open the season? And, Savannah St. only made $660K combined off Oklahoma St. and Florida St.The Cowboys and Seminoles got what they want - automatic wins. But, the Tigers proceeded to finish out the season 1-8 against the remaining FCS teams on their schedule. The players are the ones that suffer and it can't be any fun for their fans and alums, either.

I think it's weak all the way around.

 

[sho nuff]

ETA: To your example, a guy predicting the B1G wins and then a MN fan saying he hopes it plays out like that (because the OP's prediction had his team winning) seems to have nothing to do with anything. Is it really hard to understand that a MN fan would want their team to win?

A Wisconsin fan also did it and the prediction had his team losing.

Are you talking about "Gopher State"? Not surprised if that's who it was. I'm not sure I even agree that this is comparable at any level the more I read that thread and context of what's going on.

That...and how is a guy named Gopher State...who used to be a Vikings fan but switched to being a Packer fan...how is he a Wisconsin fan? When did he hop on that bandwagon?

 

[Moe.]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/big-ten-discusses-beefing-football-235249818--ncaaf.html

Did not see this posted...hopefully others follow suit...but doubting it.

Not a chance unless the new committee decides to put a substantial emphasis on OOC games.

UCLA, Southern Cal and Notre Dame already do this.

Michigan had never done it until 2007. Crap happens sometimes and that's all that can be found. I'm pissed they are doing it again in 2014.

Didn't they lose to Appalachian State in either 2003 or 2004?

2007.You never say never, but UCLA seems pretty committed to the way they schedule.

Damn, I could have sworn that was either my freshmen or sophomore year of college. Time flies I guess. I find it hard to get too fired up about this as a fan. I know there's a big difference between the worst d1 schools and the best fcs schools but I just can't make myself care. It's so beneficial for the smaller schools it's hard to fault them for doing it.

Financially, sure, but what benefits did the Savannah State Tigers football players get from having their brains beat in by Oklahoma St. and Florida St. to open the season? And, Savannah St. only made $660K combined off Oklahoma St. and Florida St.The Cowboys and Seminoles got what they want - automatic wins. But, the Tigers proceeded to finish out the season 1-8 against the remaining FCS teams on their schedule. The players are the ones that suffer and it can't be any fun for their fans and alums, either.

I think it's weak all the way around.

I figured Savannah St. would be brought up. Isn't that about as bad as it can get though? Like you said, that's a bad fcs team. I don't think playing OSU and FSU caused them to perform poorly for the rest of the season, they just aren't good at football. I feel for the players and would hope everyone else at Savannah St. appreciates what they had to go through but if you want to have an athletic department when it doesn't really generate revenue you gotta get the money from somewhere. Are there other ways that a school like that could generate that kind of cash?

 

[GDogg]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/big-ten-discusses-beefing-football-235249818--ncaaf.html

Did not see this posted...hopefully others follow suit...but doubting it.

Not a chance unless the new committee decides to put a substantial emphasis on OOC games.

UCLA, Southern Cal and Notre Dame already do this.

Michigan had never done it until 2007. Crap happens sometimes and that's all that can be found. I'm pissed they are doing it again in 2014.

Didn't they lose to Appalachian State in either 2003 or 2004?

2007.You never say never, but UCLA seems pretty committed to the way they schedule.

Damn, I could have sworn that was either my freshmen or sophomore year of college. Time flies I guess. I find it hard to get too fired up about this as a fan. I know there's a big difference between the worst d1 schools and the best fcs schools but I just can't make myself care. It's so beneficial for the smaller schools it's hard to fault them for doing it.

Financially, sure, but what benefits did the Savannah State Tigers football players get from having their brains beat in by Oklahoma St. and Florida St. to open the season? And, Savannah St. only made $660K combined off Oklahoma St. and Florida St.The Cowboys and Seminoles got what they want - automatic wins. But, the Tigers proceeded to finish out the season 1-8 against the remaining FCS teams on their schedule. The players are the ones that suffer and it can't be any fun for their fans and alums, either.

I think it's weak all the way around.

I figured Savannah St. would be brought up. Isn't that about as bad as it can get though? Like you said, that's a bad fcs team. I don't think playing OSU and FSU caused them to perform poorly for the rest of the season, they just aren't good at football. I feel for the players and would hope everyone else at Savannah St. appreciates what they had to go through but if you want to have an athletic department when it doesn't really generate revenue you gotta get the money from somewhere. Are there other ways that a school like that could generate that kind of cash?

In terms of them being a bad team? Sure. In terms of their chances of winning? Not really. FBS teams have won about 90% of the matchups. In 2011, the Pac-10 teams that did schedule FCS teams won by an average score of 48-11. These schools routinely get destroyed when matched up in these games.And, I'm not sure I buy the "they need to get the money somewhere" argument. Because, this FCS/D1-AA scheduling is a relatively new phenomenon. Since the NCAA changed the rules to allow FBS schools to count victories over FCS schools every year in 2005 (not just once every four years as it used to be), these FBS-FCS games have spiked. They are up 600% in the Pac-10/12, up 358% in the B1G, and up 140% in the SEC since 2005 and up more than 70% overall. Did the FCS schools not need to get the money somewhere before 2006?

No, it seems that once the FBS schools weren't going to be penalized by scheduling these automatic Ws, that they suddenly had warm, fuzzy feelings for their FCS brethren and their economic woes and decided to add them to their schedules. The OSUs, FSUs, Alabamas, etc. of the world sure do have hearts of gold.

In terms of generating the kind of cash Savannah St. generated, it looks like the FBS teams are creating a race to the bottom for the FCS schools. Reps from Oklahoma St. and Florida St. said that Savannah St. was an attractive matchup because they asked for less money to get destroyed than other FCS schools that demand more than $1M. If the Savannah St.'s of the world are going to start providing cheaper and cheaper Ws to FBS schools, then they are going to drive the price down for all the FCS schools, diminishing this economic argument.

 

[Moe.]

In terms of them being a bad team? Sure. In terms of their chances of winning? Not really. FBS teams have won about 90% of the matchups. In 2011, the Pac-10 teams that did schedule FCS teams won by an average score of 48-11. These schools routinely get destroyed when matched up in these games.

No doubt about that. Any idea how that 90% number compares to the Sun Belt's (or an equivalent conference) record against BCS schools?

And, I'm not sure I buy the "they need to get the money somewhere" argument. Because, this FCS/D1-AA scheduling is a relatively new phenomenon. Since the NCAA changed the rules to allow FBS schools to count victories over FCS schools every year in 2005 (not just once every four years as it used to be), these FBS-FCS games have spiked. They are up 600% in the Pac-10/12, up 358% in the B1G, and up 140% in the SEC since 2005 and up more than 70% overall. Did the FCS schools not need to get the money somewhere before 2006?

You know a lot more about this than I do but my guess would be the fcs schools probably made a lot less money prior to 2006. It's definitely possible that that argument is a little disingenuous though. Here is an article where Northern Iowa's AD referred to the possibilty of losing B1G schools as "devastating" to UNI and its peers. He states that it would be a "significant" budget hit.

No, it seems that once the FBS schools weren't going to be penalized by scheduling these automatic Ws, that they suddenly had warm, fuzzy feelings for their FCS brethren and their economic woes and decided to add them to their schedules. The OSUs, FSUs, Alabamas, etc. of the world sure do have hearts of gold.

In terms of generating the kind of cash Savannah St. generated, it looks like the FBS teams are creating a race to the bottom for the FCS schools. Reps from Oklahoma St. and Florida St. said that Savannah St. was an attractive matchup because they asked for less money to get destroyed than other FCS schools that demand more than $1M. If the Savannah St.'s of the world are going to start providing cheaper and cheaper Ws to FBS schools, then they are going to drive the price down for all the FCS schools, diminishing this economic argument.

I didn't mean to suggest that the BCS schools were scheduling these games for altruistic reasons. I agree with you that they want the easy wins and the revenue that the home game generates with no fuss. The race to the bottom aspect is unfortunate. Maybe they could institute a minimum amount but that is probably more trouble than it's worth.I don't like watching these games either. It definitely stinks for fans. I'm just saying I get why both sides schedule them and short of an outright ban I don't think you'll see them go away.

 

[GDogg]

No doubt about that. Any idea how that 90% number compares to the Sun Belt's (or an equivalent conference) record against BCS schools?

Since 2005, this is their record:vs. SEC: 3-65 (they won twice last year, though)vs. Big XII: 3-32vs. ACC: 3-22 vs. B1G: 2-17vs. Big East: 1-15vs. Pac-10/12: 0-3So, obviously terrible, but I would bet it is significantly better than FCS schools vs. BCS schools. Remember, that 90% number isn't for FCS vs. BCS. It's all of FBS vs. FCS. The Sun Belt has increased their scheduling of FCS teams by 33% since 2005, though. In 2012, it looks like the Sun Belt won, at the very least, two games vs. the SEC (Western Kentucky over Kentucky and ULM over Arkansas). They also have a winning record against C-USA in this span (25-24) and have been respectable against the MAC (12-16). They don't really play many games against anyone else in non-conference (only 4 games against the MWC and 1 against the WAC).

You know a lot more about this than I do but my guess would be the fcs schools probably made a lot less money prior to 2006. It's definitely possible that that argument is a little disingenuous though. Here is an article where Northern Iowa's AD referred to the possibilty of losing B1G schools as "devastating" to UNI and its peers. He states that it would be a "significant" budget hit.

I don't know enough about their finances one way or the other. I'm sure they are making a lot more money than prior to 2006, but were they all in bad shape prior to then?

I didn't mean to suggest that the BCS schools were scheduling these games for altruistic reasons. I agree with you that they want the easy wins and the revenue that the home game generates with no fuss. The race to the bottom aspect is unfortunate. Maybe they could institute a minimum amount but that is probably more trouble than it's worth.

I know you weren't but I have seen the argument made many times in print and by some of my friends that are alums from other conferences (a friend who is a Nebraska alum in particular) that they actually do this in great deal for altruistic reasons for the schools in their regions. The SEC is really doing it to help out the FCS schools in their footprint, etc. I just find it a little hard to believe when these schools existed and competed in football for many, many years prior to 2006.

 

[gump]

I didn't mean to suggest that the BCS schools were scheduling these games for altruistic reasons. I agree with you that they want the easy wins and the revenue that the home game generates with no fuss. The race to the bottom aspect is unfortunate. Maybe they could institute a minimum amount but that is probably more trouble than it's worth.

I know you weren't but I have seen the argument made many times in print and by some of my friends that are alums from other conferences (a friend who is a Nebraska alum in particular) that they actually do this in great deal for altruistic reasons for the schools in their regions. The SEC is really doing it to help out the FCS schools in their footprint, etc.

Many programs that schedule FBS opponents have no reason not to at this point. IMO the biggest influence that gets it stopped is Alum/Season Ticket Holder pushback...which is definitely happening. ADs are getting an earful about that these days.

 

[The Commish]

I didn't mean to suggest that the BCS schools were scheduling these games for altruistic reasons. I agree with you that they want the easy wins and the revenue that the home game generates with no fuss. The race to the bottom aspect is unfortunate. Maybe they could institute a minimum amount but that is probably more trouble than it's worth.

I know you weren't but I have seen the argument made many times in print and by some of my friends that are alums from other conferences (a friend who is a Nebraska alum in particular) that they actually do this in great deal for altruistic reasons for the schools in their regions. The SEC is really doing it to help out the FCS schools in their footprint, etc.

Many programs that schedule FBS opponents have no reason not to at this point. IMO the biggest influence that gets it stopped is Alum/Season Ticket Holder pushback...which is definitely happening. ADs are getting an earful about that these days.

Maybe no monetary reason, but there's certainly reason not to do it.

 

[Premier]

I didn't mean to suggest that the BCS schools were scheduling these games for altruistic reasons. I agree with you that they want the easy wins and the revenue that the home game generates with no fuss. The race to the bottom aspect is unfortunate. Maybe they could institute a minimum amount but that is probably more trouble than it's worth.

I know you weren't but I have seen the argument made many times in print and by some of my friends that are alums from other conferences (a friend who is a The SEC is really doing it to help out the FCS schools in their footprint, etc.

Many programs that schedule FBS opponents have no reason not to at this point. IMO the biggest influence that gets it stopped is Alum/Season Ticket Holder pushback...which is definitely happening. ADs are getting an earful about that these days.

None of this makes any sense. If you want to be playing for a national title in 2014 you better not have an FCS school on your schedule.

The SEC is really doing it to help out the FCS schools in their footprint, etc.

yea sure.

 

[shader]

There's plenty of talk about the strength of the conference in the first couple pages, yet not one reference to how stupid it is to talk about that.

It's not like you should expect it though, Plasma. The last time we had this discussion when I went back and did my little exercise on how they treated the subject when the conference was better in football in 2006 told me everything I needed to know. Page upon page of people touting Big 10 conference pride even as far as multiple Michigan fans bragging about how they couldn't wait to see OSU pound Florida, followed by the cries of "caring about a conference is stupid" that magically became relevant after Michigan/OSU got pounded in their bowl games.

I'm not sure why the subject is being changed. I don't think I've ever admonished anyone for talking about the strength of teams in a conference...ever. I've always talked about how stupid it was for fans of other schools to pull for rivals or other teams in their conference. I've talked about how stupid it is for a fan base to be chanting conference nonsense instead of celebrating their team. I've never had a problem with people discussing the merits of teams within the conference.I'm pretty confident I could name the handful of posters who were doing what you claim, and I know at least one of them was doing so in a mocking fashion. I'd like to see the list of Michigan fans pulling for OSU though...I'm not saying you're lying, but I'll believe it when you show me.

You guys equate discussion of the conference and it's teams with conference pride. There are several posters in that very thread that aren't even fans of B1G schools contributing to the discussion and there's a TON of piling on teams when they lose with the mocking and jabbing expected from rivals. Nowhere do I see rivals pulling for each other to show conference unity. Nowhere do I see rivals hoping teams win OOC so the conference looks strong. Nowhere do I see fans of the crappy teams hoping on the conference bandwagon taking credit for others' success and assigning it to themselves. All THOSE things are what I talk about and generally mock.

To be fair, Alabama fans don't pull for Auburn in general. The Michigan OSU comparison is a poor example. I read Auburn boards after the NC game and they were catatonic. No celebrations.

 

[gump]

I didn't mean to suggest that the BCS schools were scheduling these games for altruistic reasons. I agree with you that they want the easy wins and the revenue that the home game generates with no fuss. The race to the bottom aspect is unfortunate. Maybe they could institute a minimum amount but that is probably more trouble than it's worth.

I know you weren't but I have seen the argument made many times in print and by some of my friends that are alums from other conferences (a friend who is a The SEC is really doing it to help out the FCS schools in their footprint, etc.

Many programs that schedule FBS opponents have no reason not to at this point. IMO the biggest influence that gets it stopped is Alum/Season Ticket Holder pushback...which is definitely happening. ADs are getting an earful about that these days.

None of this makes any sense. If you want to be playing for a national title in 2014 you better not have an FCS school on your schedule.

If that's really the case, then they won't be on the schedule. Not exactly sure how we're going to know in advance...but Im very sure it won't come to light by a team who currently schedules one not getting a playoff bid because of it.

 

[Premier]

I didn't mean to suggest that the BCS schools were scheduling these games for altruistic reasons. I agree with you that they want the easy wins and the revenue that the home game generates with no fuss. The race to the bottom aspect is unfortunate. Maybe they could institute a minimum amount but that is probably more trouble than it's worth.

I know you weren't but I have seen the argument made many times in print and by some of my friends that are alums from other conferences (a friend who is a The SEC is really doing it to help out the FCS schools in their footprint, etc.

Many programs that schedule FBS opponents have no reason not to at this point. IMO the biggest influence that gets it stopped is Alum/Season Ticket Holder pushback...which is definitely happening. ADs are getting an earful about that these days.

None of this makes any sense. If you want to be playing for a national title in 2014 you better not have an FCS school on your schedule.

If that's really the case, then they won't be on the schedule. Not exactly sure how we're going to know in advance...but Im very sure it won't come to light by a team who currently schedules one not getting a playoff bid because of it.

I mean if Bama is 13-0 and has Furman on the schedule, then sure they're in. But if they're 12-1 and so is Oklahoma State and the worst team OSU has on it's docket is a MAC team...that committee is going to focus very hard on that.

 

[Slapdash]

I didn't mean to suggest that the BCS schools were scheduling these games for altruistic reasons. I agree with you that they want the easy wins and the revenue that the home game generates with no fuss. The race to the bottom aspect is unfortunate. Maybe they could institute a minimum amount but that is probably more trouble than it's worth.

I know you weren't but I have seen the argument made many times in print and by some of my friends that are alums from other conferences (a friend who is a The SEC is really doing it to help out the FCS schools in their footprint, etc.

Many programs that schedule FBS opponents have no reason not to at this point. IMO the biggest influence that gets it stopped is Alum/Season Ticket Holder pushback...which is definitely happening. ADs are getting an earful about that these days.

None of this makes any sense. If you want to be playing for a national title in 2014 you better not have an FCS school on your schedule.

If that's really the case, then they won't be on the schedule. Not exactly sure how we're going to know in advance...but Im very sure it won't come to light by a team who currently schedules one not getting a playoff bid because of it.

I mean if Bama is 13-0 and has Furman on the schedule, then sure they're in. But if they're 12-1 and so is Oklahoma State and the worst team OSU has on it's docket is a MAC team...that committee is going to focus very hard on that.

Highly doubt it.

 

[Premier]

I didn't mean to suggest that the BCS schools were scheduling these games for altruistic reasons. I agree with you that they want the easy wins and the revenue that the home game generates with no fuss. The race to the bottom aspect is unfortunate. Maybe they could institute a minimum amount but that is probably more trouble than it's worth.

I know you weren't but I have seen the argument made many times in print and by some of my friends that are alums from other conferences (a friend who is a The SEC is really doing it to help out the FCS schools in their footprint, etc.

Many programs that schedule FBS opponents have no reason not to at this point. IMO the biggest influence that gets it stopped is Alum/Season Ticket Holder pushback...which is definitely happening. ADs are getting an earful about that these days.

None of this makes any sense. If you want to be playing for a national title in 2014 you better not have an FCS school on your schedule.

If that's really the case, then they won't be on the schedule. Not exactly sure how we're going to know in advance...but Im very sure it won't come to light by a team who currently schedules one not getting a playoff bid because of it.

I mean if Bama is 13-0 and has Furman on the schedule, then sure they're in. But if they're 12-1 and so is Oklahoma State and the worst team OSU has on it's docket is a MAC team...that committee is going to focus very hard on that.

Highly doubt it.

Conferences are scrambling to get rid of FCS teams. Just a coincidence?Honestly you have to be almost delusional to think a 1 or 2 loss team isn't going to get jammed out of the playoffs because of a weak OOC schedule. That committee is going to make an example out of somebody quick. Look at the NCAA tournament every year. Teams constantly get squeezed because they didn't schedule a difficult OOC.

 

[Glass Joe]

Well, he's right assuming you agree that lower recruiting rankings equate to worse teams. And we all know your opinion, Commish.

Perception is reality on this topic. We already know you can't take a step in the SE without falling into a top 10 recruiting class. That's because of the number of quality players. Accumulating HS talent is one thing. Getting it to transition to college is another. But none of this was the point of my posting. My points were two:1. In the B1G, it's me against you. Week in and week out. You do your thing. I'm going to do mine.2. Given #1, why on earth would he care if the other schools are recruiting to the level he thinks they should be?I'm pretty sure he's gonna get a lot of "Mind your own business." kinds of comments/looks

I think he genuinely wants to see the whole conference imrove as a whole. The B1G is quickly becoming the PAC10 of the last 10 years. OSU/UM then everybody else. The SEC is so far a head of everyone else because the conference has depth. Serious depth. He want's the B1G to strive to do the same. And the best way to do this, is to improve recruiting and build the conference as a whole.

If it is OSU/UM then everybody else, why has Wisconsin won three straight titles?

2010 OSU won the title, as they had every year since 2005.2012 OSU won the title.Vacated titles or not, no one else should lay claim to the titles. Suck it little sisters.

 

[The Commish]

There's plenty of talk about the strength of the conference in the first couple pages, yet not one reference to how stupid it is to talk about that.

It's not like you should expect it though, Plasma. The last time we had this discussion when I went back and did my little exercise on how they treated the subject when the conference was better in football in 2006 told me everything I needed to know. Page upon page of people touting Big 10 conference pride even as far as multiple Michigan fans bragging about how they couldn't wait to see OSU pound Florida, followed by the cries of "caring about a conference is stupid" that magically became relevant after Michigan/OSU got pounded in their bowl games.

I'm not sure why the subject is being changed. I don't think I've ever admonished anyone for talking about the strength of teams in a conference...ever. I've always talked about how stupid it was for fans of other schools to pull for rivals or other teams in their conference. I've talked about how stupid it is for a fan base to be chanting conference nonsense instead of celebrating their team. I've never had a problem with people discussing the merits of teams within the conference.I'm pretty confident I could name the handful of posters who were doing what you claim, and I know at least one of them was doing so in a mocking fashion. I'd like to see the list of Michigan fans pulling for OSU though...I'm not saying you're lying, but I'll believe it when you show me.

You guys equate discussion of the conference and it's teams with conference pride. There are several posters in that very thread that aren't even fans of B1G schools contributing to the discussion and there's a TON of piling on teams when they lose with the mocking and jabbing expected from rivals. Nowhere do I see rivals pulling for each other to show conference unity. Nowhere do I see rivals hoping teams win OOC so the conference looks strong. Nowhere do I see fans of the crappy teams hoping on the conference bandwagon taking credit for others' success and assigning it to themselves. All THOSE things are what I talk about and generally mock.

To be fair, Alabama fans don't pull for Auburn in general. The Michigan OSU comparison is a poor example. I read Auburn boards after the NC game and they were catatonic. No celebrations.

Pick whatever "rivals" you want FWIW...I know several Auburn fans who took complete pride in the Alabama "championship" this year....they were all over my facebook page.

 

[The Commish]

I didn't mean to suggest that the BCS schools were scheduling these games for altruistic reasons. I agree with you that they want the easy wins and the revenue that the home game generates with no fuss. The race to the bottom aspect is unfortunate. Maybe they could institute a minimum amount but that is probably more trouble than it's worth.

I know you weren't but I have seen the argument made many times in print and by some of my friends that are alums from other conferences (a friend who is a The SEC is really doing it to help out the FCS schools in their footprint, etc.

Many programs that schedule FBS opponents have no reason not to at this point. IMO the biggest influence that gets it stopped is Alum/Season Ticket Holder pushback...which is definitely happening. ADs are getting an earful about that these days.

None of this makes any sense. If you want to be playing for a national title in 2014 you better not have an FCS school on your schedule.

If that's really the case, then they won't be on the schedule. Not exactly sure how we're going to know in advance...but Im very sure it won't come to light by a team who currently schedules one not getting a playoff bid because of it.

I mean if Bama is 13-0 and has Furman on the schedule, then sure they're in. But if they're 12-1 and so is Oklahoma State and the worst team OSU has on it's docket is a MAC team...that committee is going to focus very hard on that.

Well...that's what we hope anyway. I'll believe it when I see it though.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I didn't mean to suggest that the BCS schools were scheduling these games for altruistic reasons. I agree with you that they want the easy wins and the revenue that the home game generates with no fuss. The race to the bottom aspect is unfortunate. Maybe they could institute a minimum amount but that is probably more trouble than it's worth.

I know you weren't but I have seen the argument made many times in print and by some of my friends that are alums from other conferences (a friend who is a The SEC is really doing it to help out the FCS schools in their footprint, etc.

Many programs that schedule FBS opponents have no reason not to at this point. IMO the biggest influence that gets it stopped is Alum/Season Ticket Holder pushback...which is definitely happening. ADs are getting an earful about that these days.

None of this makes any sense. If you want to be playing for a national title in 2014 you better not have an FCS school on your schedule.

If that's really the case, then they won't be on the schedule. Not exactly sure how we're going to know in advance...but Im very sure it won't come to light by a team who currently schedules one not getting a playoff bid because of it.

I mean if Bama is 13-0 and has Furman on the schedule, then sure they're in. But if they're 12-1 and so is Oklahoma State and the worst team OSU has on it's docket is a MAC team...that committee is going to focus very hard on that.

Well...that's what we hope anyway. I'll believe it when I see it though.

Is there really a difference in playing Ball St or Furman?

 

[shader]

There's plenty of talk about the strength of the conference in the first couple pages, yet not one reference to how stupid it is to talk about that.

It's not like you should expect it though, Plasma. The last time we had this discussion when I went back and did my little exercise on how they treated the subject when the conference was better in football in 2006 told me everything I needed to know. Page upon page of people touting Big 10 conference pride even as far as multiple Michigan fans bragging about how they couldn't wait to see OSU pound Florida, followed by the cries of "caring about a conference is stupid" that magically became relevant after Michigan/OSU got pounded in their bowl games.

I'm not sure why the subject is being changed. I don't think I've ever admonished anyone for talking about the strength of teams in a conference...ever. I've always talked about how stupid it was for fans of other schools to pull for rivals or other teams in their conference. I've talked about how stupid it is for a fan base to be chanting conference nonsense instead of celebrating their team. I've never had a problem with people discussing the merits of teams within the conference.I'm pretty confident I could name the handful of posters who were doing what you claim, and I know at least one of them was doing so in a mocking fashion. I'd like to see the list of Michigan fans pulling for OSU though...I'm not saying you're lying, but I'll believe it when you show me.

You guys equate discussion of the conference and it's teams with conference pride. There are several posters in that very thread that aren't even fans of B1G schools contributing to the discussion and there's a TON of piling on teams when they lose with the mocking and jabbing expected from rivals. Nowhere do I see rivals pulling for each other to show conference unity. Nowhere do I see rivals hoping teams win OOC so the conference looks strong. Nowhere do I see fans of the crappy teams hoping on the conference bandwagon taking credit for others' success and assigning it to themselves. All THOSE things are what I talk about and generally mock.

To be fair, Alabama fans don't pull for Auburn in general. The Michigan OSU comparison is a poor example. I read Auburn boards after the NC game and they were catatonic. No celebrations.

Pick whatever "rivals" you want FWIW...I know several Auburn fans who took complete pride in the Alabama "championship" this year....they were all over my facebook page.

If love to find them. Care sharing the links? Also stop putting championship in quotes. It's annoying.

 

[Christo]

There's plenty of talk about the strength of the conference in the first couple pages, yet not one reference to how stupid it is to talk about that.

It's not like you should expect it though, Plasma. The last time we had this discussion when I went back and did my little exercise on how they treated the subject when the conference was better in football in 2006 told me everything I needed to know. Page upon page of people touting Big 10 conference pride even as far as multiple Michigan fans bragging about how they couldn't wait to see OSU pound Florida, followed by the cries of "caring about a conference is stupid" that magically became relevant after Michigan/OSU got pounded in their bowl games.

I'm not sure why the subject is being changed. I don't think I've ever admonished anyone for talking about the strength of teams in a conference...ever. I've always talked about how stupid it was for fans of other schools to pull for rivals or other teams in their conference. I've talked about how stupid it is for a fan base to be chanting conference nonsense instead of celebrating their team. I've never had a problem with people discussing the merits of teams within the conference.I'm pretty confident I could name the handful of posters who were doing what you claim, and I know at least one of them was doing so in a mocking fashion. I'd like to see the list of Michigan fans pulling for OSU though...I'm not saying you're lying, but I'll believe it when you show me.

You guys equate discussion of the conference and it's teams with conference pride. There are several posters in that very thread that aren't even fans of B1G schools contributing to the discussion and there's a TON of piling on teams when they lose with the mocking and jabbing expected from rivals. Nowhere do I see rivals pulling for each other to show conference unity. Nowhere do I see rivals hoping teams win OOC so the conference looks strong. Nowhere do I see fans of the crappy teams hoping on the conference bandwagon taking credit for others' success and assigning it to themselves. All THOSE things are what I talk about and generally mock.

To be fair, Alabama fans don't pull for Auburn in general. The Michigan OSU comparison is a poor example. I read Auburn boards after the NC game and they were catatonic. No celebrations.

Pick whatever "rivals" you want FWIW...I know several Auburn fans who took complete pride in the Alabama "championship" this year....they were all over my facebook page.

If love to find them. Care sharing the links? Also stop putting championship in quotes. It's annoying.

And dumb.

 

[gump]

I didn't mean to suggest that the BCS schools were scheduling these games for altruistic reasons. I agree with you that they want the easy wins and the revenue that the home game generates with no fuss. The race to the bottom aspect is unfortunate. Maybe they could institute a minimum amount but that is probably more trouble than it's worth.

I know you weren't but I have seen the argument made many times in print and by some of my friends that are alums from other conferences (a friend who is a The SEC is really doing it to help out the FCS schools in their footprint, etc.

Many programs that schedule FBS opponents have no reason not to at this point. IMO the biggest influence that gets it stopped is Alum/Season Ticket Holder pushback...which is definitely happening. ADs are getting an earful about that these days.

None of this makes any sense. If you want to be playing for a national title in 2014 you better not have an FCS school on your schedule.

If that's really the case, then they won't be on the schedule. Not exactly sure how we're going to know in advance...but Im very sure it won't come to light by a team who currently schedules one not getting a playoff bid because of it.

I mean if Bama is 13-0 and has Furman on the schedule, then sure they're in. But if they're 12-1 and so is Oklahoma State and the worst team OSU has on it's docket is a MAC team...that committee is going to focus very hard on that.

Well...that's what we hope anyway. I'll believe it when I see it though.

What if Alabama has Furman and Michigan, and Oklahoma State has Arizona and La-Lafayette? (Let's assume Michigan finishes in the top 15 and Arizona is unbanked.)

 

[Slapdash]

Well, he's right assuming you agree that lower recruiting rankings equate to worse teams. And we all know your opinion, Commish.

Perception is reality on this topic. We already know you can't take a step in the SE without falling into a top 10 recruiting class. That's because of the number of quality players. Accumulating HS talent is one thing. Getting it to transition to college is another. But none of this was the point of my posting. My points were two:1. In the B1G, it's me against you. Week in and week out. You do your thing. I'm going to do mine.2. Given #1, why on earth would he care if the other schools are recruiting to the level he thinks they should be?I'm pretty sure he's gonna get a lot of "Mind your own business." kinds of comments/looks

I think he genuinely wants to see the whole conference imrove as a whole. The B1G is quickly becoming the PAC10 of the last 10 years. OSU/UM then everybody else. The SEC is so far a head of everyone else because the conference has depth. Serious depth. He want's the B1G to strive to do the same. And the best way to do this, is to improve recruiting and build the conference as a whole.

If it is OSU/UM then everybody else, why has Wisconsin won three straight titles?

2010 OSU won the title, as they had every year since 2005.2012 OSU won the title.Vacated titles or not, no one else should lay claim to the titles. Suck it little sisters.

Link to the 2012 title? You're wrong about 2010 too.

 

[Slapdash]

I didn't mean to suggest that the BCS schools were scheduling these games for altruistic reasons. I agree with you that they want the easy wins and the revenue that the home game generates with no fuss. The race to the bottom aspect is unfortunate. Maybe they could institute a minimum amount but that is probably more trouble than it's worth.

I know you weren't but I have seen the argument made many times in print and by some of my friends that are alums from other conferences (a friend who is a The SEC is really doing it to help out the FCS schools in their footprint, etc.

Many programs that schedule FBS opponents have no reason not to at this point. IMO the biggest influence that gets it stopped is Alum/Season Ticket Holder pushback...which is definitely happening. ADs are getting an earful about that these days.

None of this makes any sense. If you want to be playing for a national title in 2014 you better not have an FCS school on your schedule.

If that's really the case, then they won't be on the schedule. Not exactly sure how we're going to know in advance...but Im very sure it won't come to light by a team who currently schedules one not getting a playoff bid because of it.

I mean if Bama is 13-0 and has Furman on the schedule, then sure they're in. But if they're 12-1 and so is Oklahoma State and the worst team OSU has on it's docket is a MAC team...that committee is going to focus very hard on that.

Highly doubt it.

Conferences are scrambling to get rid of FCS teams. Just a coincidence?Honestly you have to be almost delusional to think a 1 or 2 loss team isn't going to get jammed out of the playoffs because of a weak OOC schedule. That committee is going to make an example out of somebody quick. Look at the NCAA tournament every year. Teams constantly get squeezed because they didn't schedule a difficult OOC.

A FCS game is just one out of four OOC games. I would think the committee is looking at the entire schedule instead of focusing on the worst opponent like message board honks.

 

[Slapdash]

I didn't mean to suggest that the BCS schools were scheduling these games for altruistic reasons. I agree with you that they want the easy wins and the revenue that the home game generates with no fuss. The race to the bottom aspect is unfortunate. Maybe they could institute a minimum amount but that is probably more trouble than it's worth.

I know you weren't but I have seen the argument made many times in print and by some of my friends that are alums from other conferences (a friend who is a The SEC is really doing it to help out the FCS schools in their footprint, etc.

Many programs that schedule FBS opponents have no reason not to at this point. IMO the biggest influence that gets it stopped is Alum/Season Ticket Holder pushback...which is definitely happening. ADs are getting an earful about that these days.

None of this makes any sense. If you want to be playing for a national title in 2014 you better not have an FCS school on your schedule.

If that's really the case, then they won't be on the schedule. Not exactly sure how we're going to know in advance...but Im very sure it won't come to light by a team who currently schedules one not getting a playoff bid because of it.

I mean if Bama is 13-0 and has Furman on the schedule, then sure they're in. But if they're 12-1 and so is Oklahoma State and the worst team OSU has on it's docket is a MAC team...that committee is going to focus very hard on that.

Well...that's what we hope anyway. I'll believe it when I see it though.

Is there really a difference in playing Ball St or Furman?

Wofford is going to pull one of these off someday.

 

[The Commish]

There's plenty of talk about the strength of the conference in the first couple pages, yet not one reference to how stupid it is to talk about that.

It's not like you should expect it though, Plasma. The last time we had this discussion when I went back and did my little exercise on how they treated the subject when the conference was better in football in 2006 told me everything I needed to know. Page upon page of people touting Big 10 conference pride even as far as multiple Michigan fans bragging about how they couldn't wait to see OSU pound Florida, followed by the cries of "caring about a conference is stupid" that magically became relevant after Michigan/OSU got pounded in their bowl games.

I'm not sure why the subject is being changed. I don't think I've ever admonished anyone for talking about the strength of teams in a conference...ever. I've always talked about how stupid it was for fans of other schools to pull for rivals or other teams in their conference. I've talked about how stupid it is for a fan base to be chanting conference nonsense instead of celebrating their team. I've never had a problem with people discussing the merits of teams within the conference.I'm pretty confident I could name the handful of posters who were doing what you claim, and I know at least one of them was doing so in a mocking fashion. I'd like to see the list of Michigan fans pulling for OSU though...I'm not saying you're lying, but I'll believe it when you show me.

You guys equate discussion of the conference and it's teams with conference pride. There are several posters in that very thread that aren't even fans of B1G schools contributing to the discussion and there's a TON of piling on teams when they lose with the mocking and jabbing expected from rivals. Nowhere do I see rivals pulling for each other to show conference unity. Nowhere do I see rivals hoping teams win OOC so the conference looks strong. Nowhere do I see fans of the crappy teams hoping on the conference bandwagon taking credit for others' success and assigning it to themselves. All THOSE things are what I talk about and generally mock.

To be fair, Alabama fans don't pull for Auburn in general. The Michigan OSU comparison is a poor example. I read Auburn boards after the NC game and they were catatonic. No celebrations.

Pick whatever "rivals" you want FWIW...I know several Auburn fans who took complete pride in the Alabama "championship" this year....they were all over my facebook page.

If love to find them. Care sharing the links? Also stop putting championship in quotes. It's annoying.

Yeah...I'm not sure I need you on my facebook page...sorry.ETA: You can go out to the ESPN and CBS message boards and find all the evidence you need though.

 

[The Commish]

I didn't mean to suggest that the BCS schools were scheduling these games for altruistic reasons. I agree with you that they want the easy wins and the revenue that the home game generates with no fuss. The race to the bottom aspect is unfortunate. Maybe they could institute a minimum amount but that is probably more trouble than it's worth.

I know you weren't but I have seen the argument made many times in print and by some of my friends that are alums from other conferences (a friend who is a The SEC is really doing it to help out the FCS schools in their footprint, etc.

Many programs that schedule FBS opponents have no reason not to at this point. IMO the biggest influence that gets it stopped is Alum/Season Ticket Holder pushback...which is definitely happening. ADs are getting an earful about that these days.

None of this makes any sense. If you want to be playing for a national title in 2014 you better not have an FCS school on your schedule.

If that's really the case, then they won't be on the schedule. Not exactly sure how we're going to know in advance...but Im very sure it won't come to light by a team who currently schedules one not getting a playoff bid because of it.

I mean if Bama is 13-0 and has Furman on the schedule, then sure they're in. But if they're 12-1 and so is Oklahoma State and the worst team OSU has on it's docket is a MAC team...that committee is going to focus very hard on that.

Well...that's what we hope anyway. I'll believe it when I see it though.

Is there really a difference in playing Ball St or Furman?

In terms of outcome? No. In terms of player, I think so. Most guys at FCS schools are there because of their size/speed, not because they can't play the game.

 

[The Commish]

I didn't mean to suggest that the BCS schools were scheduling these games for altruistic reasons. I agree with you that they want the easy wins and the revenue that the home game generates with no fuss. The race to the bottom aspect is unfortunate. Maybe they could institute a minimum amount but that is probably more trouble than it's worth.

I know you weren't but I have seen the argument made many times in print and by some of my friends that are alums from other conferences (a friend who is a The SEC is really doing it to help out the FCS schools in their footprint, etc.

Many programs that schedule FBS opponents have no reason not to at this point. IMO the biggest influence that gets it stopped is Alum/Season Ticket Holder pushback...which is definitely happening. ADs are getting an earful about that these days.

None of this makes any sense. If you want to be playing for a national title in 2014 you better not have an FCS school on your schedule.

If that's really the case, then they won't be on the schedule. Not exactly sure how we're going to know in advance...but Im very sure it won't come to light by a team who currently schedules one not getting a playoff bid because of it.

I mean if Bama is 13-0 and has Furman on the schedule, then sure they're in. But if they're 12-1 and so is Oklahoma State and the worst team OSU has on it's docket is a MAC team...that committee is going to focus very hard on that.

Well...that's what we hope anyway. I'll believe it when I see it though.

What if Alabama has Furman and Michigan, and Oklahoma State has Arizona and La-Lafayette? (Let's assume Michigan finishes in the top 15 and Arizona is unbanked.)

Not sure what your question is. I don't know all the criteria they are going to use in selecting the teams, so I'm not sure there's a way I can answer a hypothetical. If all else was constant, I think the challenge presented by the team pairs you list would be greater for OSU than Alabama.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I didn't mean to suggest that the BCS schools were scheduling these games for altruistic reasons. I agree with you that they want the easy wins and the revenue that the home game generates with no fuss. The race to the bottom aspect is unfortunate. Maybe they could institute a minimum amount but that is probably more trouble than it's worth.

I know you weren't but I have seen the argument made many times in print and by some of my friends that are alums from other conferences (a friend who is a The SEC is really doing it to help out the FCS schools in their footprint, etc.

Many programs that schedule FBS opponents have no reason not to at this point. IMO the biggest influence that gets it stopped is Alum/Season Ticket Holder pushback...which is definitely happening. ADs are getting an earful about that these days.

None of this makes any sense. If you want to be playing for a national title in 2014 you better not have an FCS school on your schedule.

If that's really the case, then they won't be on the schedule. Not exactly sure how we're going to know in advance...but Im very sure it won't come to light by a team who currently schedules one not getting a playoff bid because of it.

I mean if Bama is 13-0 and has Furman on the schedule, then sure they're in. But if they're 12-1 and so is Oklahoma State and the worst team OSU has on it's docket is a MAC team...that committee is going to focus very hard on that.

Well...that's what we hope anyway. I'll believe it when I see it though.

Is there really a difference in playing Ball St or Furman?

In terms of outcome? No. In terms of player, I think so. Most guys at FCS schools are there because of their size/speed, not because they can't play the game.

I don't see any difference in Mich St playing E. Michigan or South Carolina playing Furman, for example. SOS should not be decided by those two games. It's cases where a Michigan St plays Wake Forest as their best non-conference game and South Carolina plays Clemson. That's where the comparisons should be weighed.Any game against a team ranked below some level (60th or 70th) should just be treated the same, IMO.

 

[The Commish]

I didn't mean to suggest that the BCS schools were scheduling these games for altruistic reasons. I agree with you that they want the easy wins and the revenue that the home game generates with no fuss. The race to the bottom aspect is unfortunate. Maybe they could institute a minimum amount but that is probably more trouble than it's worth.

I know you weren't but I have seen the argument made many times in print and by some of my friends that are alums from other conferences (a friend who is a The SEC is really doing it to help out the FCS schools in their footprint, etc.

Many programs that schedule FBS opponents have no reason not to at this point. IMO the biggest influence that gets it stopped is Alum/Season Ticket Holder pushback...which is definitely happening. ADs are getting an earful about that these days.

None of this makes any sense. If you want to be playing for a national title in 2014 you better not have an FCS school on your schedule.

If that's really the case, then they won't be on the schedule. Not exactly sure how we're going to know in advance...but Im very sure it won't come to light by a team who currently schedules one not getting a playoff bid because of it.

I mean if Bama is 13-0 and has Furman on the schedule, then sure they're in. But if they're 12-1 and so is Oklahoma State and the worst team OSU has on it's docket is a MAC team...that committee is going to focus very hard on that.

Well...that's what we hope anyway. I'll believe it when I see it though.

Is there really a difference in playing Ball St or Furman?

In terms of outcome? No. In terms of player, I think so. Most guys at FCS schools are there because of their size/speed, not because they can't play the game.

I don't see any difference in Mich St playing E. Michigan or South Carolina playing Furman, for example. SOS should not be decided by those two games. It's cases where a Michigan St plays Wake Forest as their best non-conference game and South Carolina plays Clemson. That's where the comparisons should be weighed.Any game against a team ranked below some level (60th or 70th) should just be treated the same, IMO.

I'd be fine with that but I'd actually give a penalty for going outside FBS

 

[Christo]

Possible rule changes for 2013:1. Intentional helmet-to-helmet contact: 15 yard penalty. Plus, if the hit occurs in the first half the player is ejected from the game. But if the hit occurs in the second half or OT, the player is ejected from the game and has to miss the first half of the next game. The 15 yard penalty is not reviewable but the ejection is reviewable.2. Blocking below the waist: Hits from the front are legal. Hits from the side or behind are illegal. Distance from the LOS no longer matters.3. Eighth official: Experiment in Big 12 only. Will be behind the offense opposite the referee.4. Uniforms must contrast field: Call it the Boise State rule.5. Feigning injury: 10 second run-off.6. No spiking the ball with less than 3 seconds on the play clock.I know it's for player protection, but I think they should get rid of the rule requiring a player to leave the field if his helmet comes off.

 

[FDAS]

Julie Roe Lach, NCAA VP of enforcement was #### canned today.

 

[The Commish]

Julie Roe Lach, NCAA VP of enforcement was #### canned today.

I suspect it was because of the handling of the Miami nonsense?? If so, that's a good sign. Emmert should be close behind.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Is there really a difference in playing Ball St or Furman?

In terms of outcome? No. In terms of player, I think so. Most guys at FCS schools are there because of their size/speed, not because they can't play the game.

I don't see any difference in Mich St playing E. Michigan or South Carolina playing Furman, for example. SOS should not be decided by those two games. It's cases where a Michigan St plays Wake Forest as their best non-conference game and South Carolina plays Clemson. That's where the comparisons should be weighed.Any game against a team ranked below some level (60th or 70th) should just be treated the same, IMO.

I'd be fine with that but I'd actually give a penalty for going outside FBS

Why? Is there any difference in playing E. Michigan or playing Furman? I'd bet Furman could beat E. Michigan at least half the time if they played several games. Don't get hung up on a classification. Those "cupcake" games should be local games and hopefully limited to just 1 or 2 per team.

 

[FDAS]

Julie Roe Lach, NCAA VP of enforcement was #### canned today.

I suspect it was because of the handling of the Miami nonsense?? If so, that's a good sign. Emmert should be close behind.

I hope so, on both counts.

 

[The Commish]

Is there really a difference in playing Ball St or Furman?

In terms of outcome? No. In terms of player, I think so. Most guys at FCS schools are there because of their size/speed, not because they can't play the game.

I don't see any difference in Mich St playing E. Michigan or South Carolina playing Furman, for example. SOS should not be decided by those two games. It's cases where a Michigan St plays Wake Forest as their best non-conference game and South Carolina plays Clemson. That's where the comparisons should be weighed.Any game against a team ranked below some level (60th or 70th) should just be treated the same, IMO.

I'd be fine with that but I'd actually give a penalty for going outside FBS

Why? Is there any difference in playing E. Michigan or playing Furman? I'd bet Furman could beat E. Michigan at least half the time if they played several games. Don't get hung up on a classification. Those "cupcake" games should be local games and hopefully limited to just 1 or 2 per team.

As I said before, I do think there is a difference in the kind of player. FCS guys are so much smaller and slower, even than guys at Eastern Michigan, UAB wherever. I've always been of the opinion that if the BCS wants to do their thing....keep it in their group of 6 conferences, with MAYBE one game outside those 6 conferences.

 

[Tiger Fan]

jesus, this thread is unreadible

 

[GDogg]

I didn't mean to suggest that the BCS schools were scheduling these games for altruistic reasons. I agree with you that they want the easy wins and the revenue that the home game generates with no fuss. The race to the bottom aspect is unfortunate. Maybe they could institute a minimum amount but that is probably more trouble than it's worth.

I know you weren't but I have seen the argument made many times in print and by some of my friends that are alums from other conferences (a friend who is a The SEC is really doing it to help out the FCS schools in their footprint, etc.

Many programs that schedule FBS opponents have no reason not to at this point. IMO the biggest influence that gets it stopped is Alum/Season Ticket Holder pushback...which is definitely happening. ADs are getting an earful about that these days.

None of this makes any sense. If you want to be playing for a national title in 2014 you better not have an FCS school on your schedule.

If that's really the case, then they won't be on the schedule. Not exactly sure how we're going to know in advance...but Im very sure it won't come to light by a team who currently schedules one not getting a playoff bid because of it.

I mean if Bama is 13-0 and has Furman on the schedule, then sure they're in. But if they're 12-1 and so is Oklahoma State and the worst team OSU has on it's docket is a MAC team...that committee is going to focus very hard on that.

Well...that's what we hope anyway. I'll believe it when I see it though.

Is there really a difference in playing Ball St or Furman?

Yes.

 

[GDogg]

4. Uniforms must contrast field: Call it the Boise State rule.

What do they do for teams with full green uniforms (I think Oregon has a couple iterations of this)?

I know it's for player protection, but I think they should get rid of the rule requiring a player to leave the field if his helmet comes off.

I agree.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I didn't mean to suggest that the BCS schools were scheduling these games for altruistic reasons. I agree with you that they want the easy wins and the revenue that the home game generates with no fuss. The race to the bottom aspect is unfortunate. Maybe they could institute a minimum amount but that is probably more trouble than it's worth.

I know you weren't but I have seen the argument made many times in print and by some of my friends that are alums from other conferences (a friend who is a The SEC is really doing it to help out the FCS schools in their footprint, etc.

Many programs that schedule FBS opponents have no reason not to at this point. IMO the biggest influence that gets it stopped is Alum/Season Ticket Holder pushback...which is definitely happening. ADs are getting an earful about that these days.

None of this makes any sense. If you want to be playing for a national title in 2014 you better not have an FCS school on your schedule.

If that's really the case, then they won't be on the schedule. Not exactly sure how we're going to know in advance...but Im very sure it won't come to light by a team who currently schedules one not getting a playoff bid because of it.

I mean if Bama is 13-0 and has Furman on the schedule, then sure they're in. But if they're 12-1 and so is Oklahoma State and the worst team OSU has on it's docket is a MAC team...that committee is going to focus very hard on that.

Well...that's what we hope anyway. I'll believe it when I see it though.

Is there really a difference in playing Ball St or Furman?

Yes.

What is it besides uniform colors?

 

[Christo]

jesus, this thread is unreadible

Yep. I tried to change the subject. But most people just like pissing in each others' corn flakes.

 

[Christo]

4. Uniforms must contrast field: Call it the Boise State rule.

What do they do for teams with full green uniforms (I think Oregon has a couple iterations of this)?

They have 47,963,672 other variations. I think they'll be okay.