If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Mid-Major)   Boise State to BCS teams: "Hey, we have an opening in 2011. Would you mind if we scheduled you at your place?" Elite BCS teams to Boise State: "LOL, hell no. BTW, you have a weak schedule."   (voices.idahostatesman.com) divider line 184
    More: Obvious, Boise State, BCS, Conference USA, incentives, BCS conferences, Idaho Statesman, Boise, Fresno State  
•       •       •

3885 clicks; posted to Sports » on 04 Nov 2009 at 9:06 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



184 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-11-04 03:08:51 PM  
no way. non-conference cupcake directional universities are the new black.

it's sad. it used to be just teams like nebraska and the SEC doing it. now they all do. PSU used to play notre dame and pitt and the kickoff classic against teams like USC. now even they schedule akron and costal carolina
 
2009-11-04 03:15:19 PM  
albo: it's sad. it used to be just teams like nebraska and the SEC doing it. now they all do. PSU used to play notre dame and pitt and the kickoff classic against teams like USC. now even they schedule akron and costal carolina

Here is a great article on just that topic (new window).
 
2009-11-04 03:22:36 PM  
I bet USC would take the offer.
 
2009-11-04 03:34:25 PM  
The BCS system has caused this...elite teams have nothing to gain by playing someone regarded as not elite yet still dangerous enough to possibly beat them. If the elite team wins they get no recognition for it---they were supposed to win...if they lose there goes any chance they have for a shot at the national title. This is why they schedule cupcakes. They still don't get recognition for beating them, but the chances they'll actually lose to such a team are very slight.
 
2009-11-04 03:37:41 PM  
packrabid04: They still don't get recognition for beating them, but the chances they'll actually lose to such a team are very slight

but it also hurts the team by not getting challenged.

PSU had this problem--they beat up on a few non-conference cupcakes but then when they got to Iowa for a conference game, they weren't ready for a good team and lost.

beating the Directional University Fightin' Stiffs by 42 points doesn't give a coaching staff an accurate look at how good their team is and what they need to work on.
 
2009-11-04 03:38:15 PM  
toddalmighty: I bet USC would take the offer.

For the most part, the entire PAC-10 does a pretty good job of having balls enough to schedule quality OC games. Fresno, Boise, Utah and BYU can usually count on one or two of these teams stepping up to the plate and scheduling them.
 
2009-11-04 03:43:16 PM  
toddalmighty: I bet USC would take the offer.

Between ASU embarassing Michigan awhile back and Boise State destroying any chance Oregon had at the national title picture, I think it's safe to say the BCS good old boys network will stay true to its conservative roots and continue to pound hell out of the Charleston Southerns of the football world instead.
 
2009-11-04 04:03:12 PM  
albo: packrabid04: They still don't get recognition for beating them, but the chances they'll actually lose to such a team are very slight

but it also hurts the team by not getting challenged.

PSU had this problem--they beat up on a few non-conference cupcakes but then when they got to Iowa for a conference game, they weren't ready for a good team and lost.

beating the Directional University Fightin' Stiffs by 42 points doesn't give a coaching staff an accurate look at how good their team is and what they need to work on.


This isn't what college coaches are worried about. They're just concerned about getting their team bowl eligible and getting their contract extension. Winning 4 games against sub-BCS teams means they only need 2 or 3 other wins to achieve this.
 
2009-11-04 04:08:43 PM  
whistleridge:
Between ASU embarassing Michigan awhile back and Boise State destroying any chance Oregon had at the national title picture, I think it's safe to say the BCS good old boys network will stay true to its conservative roots and continue to pound hell out of the Charleston Southerns of the football world instead.


I actually drive by Charleston Southern on the way to work. At first I thought the football stadium was for a middle school or something. It looks like it has a triple-digit capacity. It was quite amusing what would happen if Florida played there instead of the other way around.
 
2009-11-04 04:12:11 PM  
packrabid04: This isn't what college coaches rabid alumni are worried about
 
2009-11-04 04:33:58 PM  
There's no reason to go play on the stupid blue field. If they want respect, you don't have to start with the "Elite" BCS teams. Start with playing anyone in the major conferences. I'm sure you can get Illinois, Mississippi State and Baylor.
 
2009-11-04 04:39:29 PM  
GAT_00: There's no reason to go play on the stupid blue field. If they want respect, you don't have to start with the "Elite" BCS teams. Start with playing anyone in the major conferences. I'm sure you can get Illinois, Mississippi State and Baylor.

I believe they're playing VT at a neutral site in next year's season kickoff game, after playing top 10 Oregon this year and top 10 Georgia a couple years ago. I find it hard to believe they'd turn down any request from a top conference, even if they had to go on the road.
 
2009-11-04 04:41:28 PM  
GAT_00: There's no reason to go play on the stupid blue field.

If you would have taken the time to actually read and comprehend TFA, you would know that Boise is looking for away games with no obligations to return.
 
2009-11-04 04:48:44 PM  
HeadLever: If you would have taken the time to actually read and comprehend TFA, you would know that Boise is looking for away games with no obligations to return.

I actually did, and somehow didn't think through.

Racht: I believe they're playing VT at a neutral site in next year's season kickoff game

A quick Google says yes, they are. And they play Oregon State next year too.

I have trouble believing they are getting turned down across the board.
 
2009-11-04 04:50:29 PM  
Maybe if they are unbeaten through the regular season for three seasons in a row, they'll get a chance.

Oh wait, no. 'Cause the BCS is retarded.
 
2009-11-04 04:59:50 PM  
HeadLever: toddalmighty: I bet USC would take the offer.

For the most part, the entire PAC-10 does a pretty good job of having balls enough to schedule quality OC games. Fresno, Boise, Utah and BYU can usually count on one or two of these teams stepping up to the plate and scheduling them.


The WAC and Mountain West have been stronger conferences than Conference USA, Sun Belt, and Mid-American conferences. I think this is more of a factor in the PAC-10's slightly-tougher-patsy scheduling than any amount of 'balls.' It's all about location and how big of a draw they get from the smaller school's alumni.

Also, the article specifically mentions USC as already having a full schedule. FTFA:

No one is naming names, but here are some teams that have openings in 2011, according to nationalchamps.net: Michigan, Oklahoma, Arizona, Texas A&M, Alabama (though the Crimson Tide plays at Penn State in 2011), Texas, Oklahoma State

Among the teams whose schedules are full for 2011: UCLA, Penn State, Tennessee, Florida, USC
 
2009-11-04 05:03:16 PM  
Racht: GAT_00: There's no reason to go play on the stupid blue field. If they want respect, you don't have to start with the "Elite" BCS teams. Start with playing anyone in the major conferences. I'm sure you can get Illinois, Mississippi State and Baylor.

I believe they're playing VT at a neutral site in next year's season kickoff game, after playing top 10 Oregon this year and top 10 Georgia a couple years ago. I find it hard to believe they'd turn down any request from a top conference, even if they had to go on the road.


Addendum to my post above: A neutral site game with an east coast team would work. But setting those up are even more of a headache for schools and they have to schedule somewhere so that they can get good fan support or both schools lose money on the deal.

The thing to keep in mind is that it's all a business. No team is going to schedule Boise just to toughen up their schedule. They will schedule Boise if they think they can make good money off the deal.
 
2009-11-04 05:33:36 PM  
Maybe because no one can find the state of Boise on the map! ZOWIE! Katcha! *crickets*

I know the joke doesn't work in this case. It's never worked before, I don't know why it should start working now.
 
2009-11-04 05:35:58 PM  
i369.photobucket.com
 
2009-11-04 05:36:04 PM  
We can argue for a playoff system all we want, but lets take that off the table.

Still- in what universe is it a good idea for the actual TEAMS to come up with their own schedules?

That would be like my White Sox saying "yeah, we don't want to play the Yankees, Angels, or Red Sox in 2010".

The "top" teams should play "top" teams every week, and sprinkle in some up-and-coming mid-level teams like a Boise State.

And MAKE them play the teams.

Florida, coming off a National Championship should never be playing a Troy or Costal Carolina.
 
2009-11-04 05:55:12 PM  
downstairs: The "top" teams should play "top" teams every week, and sprinkle in some up-and-coming mid-level teams like a Boise State.

I agree about the point of making your own schedule, but that assertion is pretty ridiculous. The NFL doesn't say "oh well since you went 13-3 last year, you only get scheduled against hard teams this year and you won't play the Lions or Rams."

Personally, I'd be in favor of conference-type challenges, where you might say "Ok, the SEC is going to play the Big-10 and WAC", and setup the OOC schedule that way. Maybe exempt 1 OOC game each team for them to play their traditional rival in another conference.

Even still, there's issues because of the huge talent and budget difference between schools at the top and bottom of the 119-team I-A structure.
 
2009-11-04 07:16:15 PM  
After Boise State knocked off heavily favored OU several years ago in superb fashion, an underdog team vs. a supposed powerhouse would attract a far greater audience (if advertised over and over with BS beating OU shown that it CAN happen, not to mention Oregon) than any other. Every fan of a team not in the running wants to watch an underdog take out Florida, Texas, Alabama, Cincy, or Iowa.

TV ratings are the factor here. If it weren't, TCU BS, and Cincy would have a legit chance.
 
2009-11-04 07:53:58 PM  
albo: SU used to play notre dame and pitt and the kickoff classic against teams like USC.

Well, part of this is that some of those games, especially pitt, go back to the pre-Televen days. Granted, they "played" the Irish two years ago (if you want to call Clausen running a quarterback keeper on the last play of the half from the fifty yard line "playing the Irish"), but I have no clue why they dumped the whole Pitt rivalry.
 
2009-11-04 08:07:13 PM  
YouWinAgainGravity:
I agree about the point of making your own schedule, but that assertion is pretty ridiculous. The NFL doesn't say "oh well since you went 13-3 last year, you only get scheduled against hard teams this year and you won't play the Lions or Rams."


To some extent, it does. Three games per year are against the teams that finished in the same place as you did in your division. You win your division, you play all the other division winners in your conference, ditto if you finish last or whatever.
 
2009-11-04 08:36:45 PM  
albo: packrabid04: They still don't get recognition for beating them, but the chances they'll actually lose to such a team are very slight

but it also hurts the team by not getting challenged.

PSU had this problem--they beat up on a few non-conference cupcakes but then when they got to Iowa for a conference game, they weren't ready for a good team and lost.

beating the Directional University Fightin' Stiffs by 42 points doesn't give a coaching staff an accurate look at how good their team is and what they need to work on.


Those games are money makers for the school. If someone big comes to town they may have to share more than a pittance of their gate, and risk a loss which is a veritable death sentence in the championship hunt.

The system is failing us.
 
2009-11-04 08:38:47 PM  
GAT_00: A quick Google says yes, they are.

Quite correct. Boise St. is scheduled to play Virginia Tech next year at Fed Ex field in DC on Sept. 6th.

/Go Hokies.
 
2009-11-04 09:19:42 PM  
The BCS didn't cause this. The ranking system that college football has been using to forgo a playoff is causing this. Boise St never would have had a chance to win a NC. It's not like 15 years ago the AP would have been crowning them National Champs. If they wanted to do that then they would do it.

There's no way to fix the polling system except to add a playoff to the end of it and get rid of preseason polls. Week 6 is a good time to start the polls which is when the BCS comes out but a playoff still needs to be added and additionally it makes very little difference that it comes out in week 6 because 2/3 of the poll comes out before that.
 
2009-11-04 09:19:44 PM  
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
 
2009-11-04 09:23:27 PM  
Here's what I don't get... the Mountain West Conference has 9 teams. Why the fark don't they pick up Boise State? Then they'd get to play teams like TCU and Utah every year. Not always elite teams, but usually pretty solid. Who loses here? Even if Boise wants to maintain a rivalry with Fresno or something, they could make that one of their non-con games every year.

Would the Mountain West + Boise be any worse than the Big East? I think it would probably be deserving of an automatic BCS bid, IMO.
 
2009-11-04 09:24:42 PM  
Non-BCS teams have little to no control over their schedules. They are at the whim of whomever will agree to play them.

This fact is why anyone who makes any reference whatsoever to a non-BCS team's "strength of schedule" is an idiot or a BCS apologist.
 
2009-11-04 09:25:38 PM  
Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Here's what I don't get... the Mountain West Conference has 9 teams. Why the fark don't they pick up Boise State?

Because currently their bowl and TV revenue are shared nine ways, and if they add a team those revenues have to be shared ten ways.

They have zero incentive to add teams.
 
2009-11-04 09:30:41 PM  
bubbaprog: They have zero incentive to add teams.

But if they could get the guaranteed BCS bid, wouldn't that bring in a boatload of cash?

I guess that's a massive, massive "if." What a joke.
 
2009-11-04 09:33:17 PM  
Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Here's what I don't get... the Mountain West Conference has 9 teams. Why the fark don't they pick up Boise State? Then they'd get to play teams like TCU and Utah every year. Not always elite teams, but usually pretty solid. Who loses here? Even if Boise wants to maintain a rivalry with Fresno or something, they could make that one of their non-con games every year.

Would the Mountain West + Boise be any worse than the Big East? I think it would probably be deserving of an automatic BCS bid, IMO.


This is a pretty standard argument that you hear from BCS supporters. What's funny is the BCS supporters like to talk about tradition, but when it comes to the lesser teams they want them to throw their tradition out the window and join another conference. But yeah the Big East is a joke and I have no idea why Pitt is ranked that high. Actually I do, it's so Cincy can have a good looking opponent on their barren schedule.
 
2009-11-04 09:35:44 PM  
Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Would the Mountain West + Boise be any worse than the Big East? I think it would probably be deserving of an automatic BCS bid, IMO.

Part of what may be holding this back is the fact that the MWC has a really crappy TV contract with Versus, while the WAC has an excellent contract with ESPN (for a mid-major confrence).
 
2009-11-04 09:40:12 PM  
falcon176: the Big East is a joke

Really? It's a joke?

Sure, Syracuse is a joke, but UConn, Cincinnati, and South Florida are all fantastic.

If those teams weren't any good, they would have lost some OOC games.
 
2009-11-04 09:43:57 PM  
Racht: To some extent, it does. Three games per year are against the teams that finished in the same place as you did in your division. You win your division, you play all the other division winners in your conference, ditto if you finish last or whatever.

By three, you mean two.
 
2009-11-04 09:45:16 PM  
You idiots don't realize that most teams' schedules (see: Florida, etc.) are set years in advance. Even if Florida wanted to play Boise, they wouldn't be able to until 2013 or so at the earliest.

downstairs: Florida, coming off a National Championship should never be playing a Troy or Costal Carolina.

So, you're saying Florida knew they would win the National Championship in January 2009 when they made the 2009 regular season schedule years ago?
 
2009-11-04 09:47:06 PM  
HeadLever: albo: it's sad. it used to be just teams like nebraska and the SEC doing it. now they all do. PSU used to play notre dame and pitt and the kickoff classic against teams like USC. now even they schedule akron and costal carolina

Here is a great article on just that topic (new window).


Before I read that I utterly disliked USC and OU. After reading that, mainly this part:
"USC is one of just four schools to have never played a FCS team."
and
OU's upcoming non-conference games I now have alot more respect for both schools programs.
 
2009-11-04 09:51:32 PM  
I'm sure UGA would be willing to whip their asses again.
 
2009-11-04 09:55:30 PM  
veale728: So, you're saying Florida knew they would win the National Championship in January 2009 when they made the 2009 regular season schedule years ago?

Far from me to defend Florida, but yes -- these contracts are signed up to ten years in advance.

That's another reason anyone who uses the phrase "strength of schedule" is an idiot.
 
2009-11-04 09:56:48 PM  
aegisalpha:No one is naming names, but here are some teams that have openings in 2011, according to nationalchamps.net: Michigan, Oklahoma, Arizona, Texas A&M, Alabama (though the Crimson Tide plays at Penn State in 2011), Texas, Oklahoma State

Among the teams whose schedules are full for 2011: UCLA, Penn State, Tennessee, Florida, USC


Really? I guess I'm just floored that a top SEC team is actually travelling away from the south to go play a team that might be halfway decent. I guess LSU did go to Washington this year, even if they were winless in 2008.
 
2009-11-04 10:00:18 PM  
KiwDaWabbit: aegisalpha:No one is naming names, but here are some teams that have openings in 2011, according to nationalchamps.net: Michigan, Oklahoma, Arizona, Texas A&M, Alabama (though the Crimson Tide plays at Penn State in 2011), Texas, Oklahoma State

Among the teams whose schedules are full for 2011: UCLA, Penn State, Tennessee, Florida, USC

Really? I guess I'm just floored that a top SEC team is actually travelling away from the south to go play a team that might be halfway decent. I guess LSU did go to Washington this year, even if they were winless in 2008.


yeah, but looking at alabama this season, they are ranked below two teams with cupcake OOC schedules, and they beat VT who had been top 10 for a while this season. proves the article's point: "why schedule good OOC teams when it really doesn't matter?"
 
2009-11-04 10:01:32 PM  
veale728: You idiots don't realize that most teams' schedules (see: Florida, etc.) are set years in advance. Even if Florida wanted to play Boise, they wouldn't be able to until 2013 or so at the earliest.

Bzzzt. Wrong. (new window)

2012 has several openings, although it appears that 2011 is full.

bel4sucks: I'm sure UGA would be willing to whip their asses again.

It appears that Georgia's schedule is full for 2011 with Louisville, Coastal Carolina, New Mexico State, and Georgia Tech
 
2009-11-04 10:02:07 PM  
Boise doesn't deserve to be in a BCS bowl because it has only played one game this year. Sorry. If you want to play in a big time bowl, play a big time regular schedule.

/ bring on a playoff system
// now!
 
2009-11-04 10:04:46 PM  
Boise St....A+++...would play again...

gossiboocrew.files.wordpress.com
 
2009-11-04 10:08:54 PM  
there their theyre: Before I read that I utterly disliked USC and OU. After reading that, mainly this part:
"USC is one of just four schools to have never played a FCS team."
and
OU's upcoming non-conference games I now have alot more respect for both schools programs.


I root against USC and OU every chance I get, but I have to respect that they have stuck true to the spirit of College Football better than almost anyone else.
 
2009-11-04 10:12:20 PM  
falcon176: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Here's what I don't get... the Mountain West Conference has 9 teams. Why the fark don't they pick up Boise State? Then they'd get to play teams like TCU and Utah every year. Not always elite teams, but usually pretty solid. Who loses here? Even if Boise wants to maintain a rivalry with Fresno or something, they could make that one of their non-con games every year.

Would the Mountain West + Boise be any worse than the Big East? I think it would probably be deserving of an automatic BCS bid, IMO.

This is a pretty standard argument that you hear from BCS supporters. What's funny is the BCS supporters like to talk about tradition, but when it comes to the lesser teams they want them to throw their tradition out the window and join another conference. But yeah the Big East is a joke and I have no idea why Pitt is ranked that high. Actually I do, it's so Cincy can have a good looking opponent on their barren schedule.


Since the defection of Boston College, Virginia Tech, and Thug U, the Big East is 3-1 in BCS games. The ACC is 1-3, the Big 10 is 2-6, and the Big 12 is 3-3. The only conferences that have done better are the SEC and the Pac 10 USC. Please do some actual research instead of parroting the bullshiat you hear on ESPN.
 
2009-11-04 10:12:27 PM  
Most teams' schedules ARE full or nearly so - it's unlikely that any BCS team has more than one opening left on its schedule for 2011. This being the case, Boise's open date and the other school's open date would have to coincide and NOT be a bye week in the middle of the season. This leaves very, very few windows for this game to work in the first place, so people going HURRRRR BOISE STATE IS JUST TOO GOOD FOR THE BIG BOYS are pretty off base.
 
2009-11-04 10:14:37 PM  
This all comes back to a playoff system. It is not about Boise St. They are just a symptom.

I am tired of hearing about the "poor student athletes." I bet you could not find a single player or coach that would not want to participate in the greatest invention of the 21st century: The College Football Playoffs.
 
2009-11-04 10:14:58 PM  
FTA...

So why would you risk a loss by scheduling a team like Boise State? Look at what a loss to the Broncos has done to Oregon. If the Ducks had played Portland State in their season opener, Oregon would likely be ranked No. 1 or No. 2 in the country at this point.

At best Oregon would be 4th. They would never be ranked higher than unbeaten SEC teams or Texas (while unbeaten)...That's just not something the voters could do.
 
Displayed 50 of 184 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report