NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:56 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2005 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 134  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:39 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 10:32 am
Posts: 122
Location: Naperville, IL
The BCS didn't get great news from the TV ratings front:

Fox's BCS ratings take nose dive from last year's

As to my point from earlier that the BCS is geared toward getting the average Joe Blow off of the street to watch games as opposed to the hard core fans, the Sugar Bowl blowout with the inclusion of Notre Dame still ended up nearly a full ratings point higher than the classic Fiesta Bowl. The Rose Bowl, which was on ABC and also a blowout by the end, was the highest rated game by far. Meanwhile, the more competitive Louisville-Wake Forest Orange Bowl had the worst rating of any BCS bowl game ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:18 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540

Quote:

Quote:
Illini Blu Demon, Thanks for your post. Excellent analysis & I would agree that the Big Ten will in all likelihood hold out for Notre Dame.

Let me throw in a "however" with regard to Rutgers. It was the Big Ten's own study which extolled the qualities of Rutgers as a candidate & that was before their football was any good. In their favor when considering more than just footballwas the fact Rutgers offers the breadth of teams that the Big Ten is looking for in a partner.

I think that in evaluating a candidate, a conference needs to have the ability to look into the future rather than into the rear view mirror. A dozen years ago, the same comments you made about Rutgers could have been made about Virginia Tech & the past dozen years haven't been too shabby for Tech football. Before 1993, Tech had never been ranked in the top 20 by both polls in the same year & they had never been ranked higher than #16 on the few occasions that either poll had given them a nod. They were not established as a national program. But one could see it coming. Beamer was there & by '93 the losing seasons were behind him. He had institutional support. All of the ingredients were there for a ainning program.

The same can be said about Rutgers today. Schiano has turned the corner with this program. The university has made a commitment to him & he in turn has made one to the university. This is a rare major flagship university in a large state. Facilites are very good. But there is a difference between Rutgers & Virginia Tech. Rutgers has no instate competition from another BCS university. Not only that, Rutgers has no competition from a state flagship in the state right across the Hudson River.

Of course Rutgers needs more than one good season to establish itself. But right now Rutgers brings far more to the table than most of the current Big Ten members on the football field. And it brings a better market than most of the current members & one that is potentially better than any current Big Ten. And it is a peer with Big Ten members as a major research university. What it's missing are 80,000 fans in the stadium - or even 60,000.

What does the future look like at Notre Dame? Well, they just set the record for bowl futility - 9 straight losses. Their talent on the field is simply not able to compete with the talent being fielded at other top programs like Ohio State & Michigan. The key question is why this is the case. Bad coaches? More likely it's the admission standards. So, the key question is whether the future at Notre Dame more like Michigan or more like Northwestern.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that the Big Ten could do a lot worse than Rutgers.



Friar Fan,

I definitely believe that any conference needs to look toward the long term as opposed to looking at immediate gratification. Rutgers certainly has a lot of huge advantages on paper on the academic and location side while its football program appears to be on the ascent. What I'd like to emphasize, though, is that the Big Ten is not the ACC - that is, the Big Ten is incredibly stringent about its membership composition almost to a fault. It took years to get Penn State into the conference and that's a school with an undeniable football tradition which also sells out a 100,000 seat stadium every week. Think of it this way: before the Big Ten brought Penn State into the athletics conference in 1993, the conference hadn't changed its membership since the addition of Michigan State in 1953, which was the same year that the ACC was created in the first place. I understand what you're saying about Virginia Tech, but the way that the Big Ten operates is that they will require a 12th team to be an exceptionally proven commodity that will provide huge dividends right away, no questions asked. Apply the smell test here - the Big Ten is only going to pick a school where there's not going to be a single debate as to whether it was right decision (at least on a financial and exposure level). It has to be such an obvious choice that no one would question it.

Rutgers has a lot going for it right now, but it will seriously take a least a decade of success before the Big Ten would consider it for membership. As a practical matter, the size of Rutgers Stadium is huge detriment. It has 7,000 fewer seats than Northwestern's Ryan Field, which is the smallest stadium in the Big Ten but is serving a university that is 1/3 the size of Rutgers. The 60,000-seat number that you alluded to is probably the bare minimum for membership consideration. Showing that Rutgers can truly deliver the NYC media market on a consistent basis (not just in years when there are bandwagon fans) is the other big step. As of right now, saying that Rutgers delivers the NYC market is about as inaccurate as saying that Northern Illinois delivers the Chicago market. It's going to take awhile for Rutgers to gain a solid traction on the NYC sports scene.

The perceptions of colleges are based so much on tradition and history that it takes a whole lot longer to overcome preconceived notions (or in the case of Notre Dame and a few other schools, they have the opposite ability to catapult itself as a result of its tradition and history) than it does in pro sports.


Illini Blue Demon,

Thank you for an excellent post & a thoughtful reply. I think that you're right on point in everything you state & that events will bear out your analysis.

I just happen to disagree with what is apparently the thinking in the Big Ten. I'll just note a few points to supplement what you said.

1. It didn't take as long as you think to get Penn State into the Big Ten. The invitation was extended to PSU in the fall of 1989. After the requisite period of evaluation, membership was formally approved in the spring of 1990. Because of prior contractual & scheduling commitments, PSU could not begin full participation until 1993. The deal was fully ready to go in 1989 & the sales job had been completed before that. Bryce Jordan took office as PSU's president in 1983. Right from the beginning, he let it be known that he saw Penn State's best fit as being with the Big Ten & not with its traditional Eastern rivals. This was a huge break with tradition & it took some convincing at PSU before he could approach the Big Ten. Six years (1983-89) was a pretty short time for such a move to be accomplished. Rutgers would not be breaking new ground with such a move the way that PSU was. It could be accomplished much more quickly.

2. The Meadowlands is just a few exits up the Jersey Tpke from Rutgers & is readily available for large crowds that can't be accomodated at Rutgers home stadium. It is also available as a temporary home while the Rutgers stadium, which can hold up to 44,000 as it did for the Louisville game, is expanded or replaced.

3. Rutgers averaged 41,111 this year at home games. This is higher than either Indiana or Northwestern, which both averaged under 40,000 last year. Minnesota & Illinois both averaged in the 40's. So, while the Big Ten is home to some of the biggest stadiums & some of the largest crowds (Michigan, Ohio State, & Penn State), this is not representative of the conference across the board. Rutgers is already well within the attendance range of the 4 schools mentioned, who represent more than one-third of the conference membership.

4, The market to whidh I was referring in my post that Rutgers would bring is not the NYC market. I was referring to the New Jersey market. Rutgers is the flagship university of the 10th largest state in the country & is rare among this group in that it has no competition from any other IA football program in the state. I agree that they would only bring the NYC market from time to time, when they had big years - but that's a heck of a bonus! If the Big Ten can tap a Market of another 11+ million people even some of the time in addition to New Jersey's 8.6 million, well . . . Wow! My comment was that the NYC market represents potential.

Cheers!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:58 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540

Quote:
Anyone that's paid attention to college football knows that Notre Dame has been overrated for the last two seasons when you examine how they've performed against their top opponents. I'm sure most of the people on this board would have rather seen Rutgers or, if conferences were allowed to have more than 2 teams in the BCS, Wisconsin as opposed to Notre Dame in the Sugar Bowl.


I too would rather have seen Rutgers in the Sugar Bowl, but only because I'm biased. I'm a fan of the Big East & I really like this year's Rutgers team a lot. However, it would not have been fair & would not have been the right thing to do. Wisconsin over Notre Dame would have been a joke IMO.

Illini Blue demon, I respectfully disagree with your statement that ND has been overrated for the past two years. They may have been true last year, but they certainly were not this year.

Just to compare ND with the 2 schools you've mentioned. To select Rutgers over ND based on RU's home win over Louisville would be to ignore Rutgers' loss to Cincinnati. ND didn't lose to anyone ranked as low as Cincy. All 3 of their losses were to teams ranked in the BCS top 5 - all ranked ahead of Louisville.

One big win does not make a season. Rutgers didn't have any other wins over a team ranked higher by the BCS formula than #40, which was a 2-point win over South Florida. In contrast, ND had 3 wins over teams ranked higher than USF by the BCS formula. All three - Penn State, UCLA, & Georgia Tech - were ranked in the top 30.

The Rutgers argument - as well as a case for West Virginia - would both be legitimate debates vs Notre Dame for a bowl spot. But the case for Wisconsin is non-existent. At least Rutgers had a reasonably challenging schedue, ranked 34th by the BCS, although not as difficult as Notre Dame's, #22 by BCS. Wisconsin was the most overrated team in the country with the 81st ranked schedule. They drew a bye in the Big Ten so they didn't have to play Ohio State. Their win over Penn State was their only win over a team ranked higher than #44 before their bowl game against Arkansas. In fact, Michigan was the only other team they played in the top 40 & that was a loss. They padded their OOC schedule with Western Illinois, Buffalo, Bowling Green, & San Diego State - all ranked below 100!

The idea that Notre Dame is overrated is repeated so often that it is never scrutinized & is just accepted as conventional wisdom. Notre Dame was blown out this year by 3 teams in the top 5 this year, clearly showing that they were unable to compete with teams at this level. The margin of victory in these games was such that it would suggest that they would be overmatched not just by the top 5 but by anyone in the top 10. However, the publicity for these 3 losses overshadowed the fact that they beat 3 teams ranked in the 20's. This was a representative enough group, that it is fair to say that they were better than teams at that level. Well, they weren't ranked in the top ten & they weren't ranked in the third ten. They were ranked in the second ten, between the other two, & the record shows that this is pretty much where they belong this year. It would be fair to debate whether they should be #11 or #19, but with 2 losses against a top 25 schedule, they were probably as reasonable a choice for the last BCS bowl spot as anyone else would have been. Anyone left for an at-large spot after LSU & Michigan had flaws.

I pay a fair amount of attention to college football & I don't accept this notion that ND was overrated. When this claim is made, I wonder just who does anyone think is doing this overrating & why.

Are the coaches, who have much more reason to vote for teams in their own conferences, overrating Notre Dame? Who knows the game better than they do & what would be their motivationto overrate the Irish?

Is it the computers that are overrating Notre Dame? Do the computers have special software to favor ND when the numbers are fed in & crunched every week?

Check the Harris panel's membership on their website. It includes people like former SEC commissioner, Roy Kramer. Is he throwing votes to Notre Dame? Is Jake Crouthamel, the former Syracuse AD? The panel is full of people knowledgable about college football. Their votes are availabel on the website for all to see - unlike the coaches. With such public disclosure, why would they throw votes to an undeserving team for all to see?

These are the three components of the BCS formula. There are an awful lot of people involved from doaches to computer geeks to the Harris panel of football experts. This would have to be a massive conspiracy or an awful lot fo very dumb people for the "ND overrated" theory to be true.

Finally, let me ask. If you think that Notre Dame is overrated at #11, where do you - or anyone else - think they should be rated?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:18 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2686
Location: Phoenix Arizona
illibluedemon/friarfan, happy new year to both of you.

In my haste to post on Notre Dame BCS loss this week and the ND should be in the Big Ten opinion, have to retract my thought and Notre Dame really should be in the Big East for all sports including football. I have the Big Ten 12 thmember at end of this post.

I actually like the 16 member Big East basketball league. Its like a pro type league with many of the largest TV markets included. Even with a down year in basketball this year, TV will draw well when Big East teams are on TV for basketball.

With the Big East perfect bowl record (don't care if its the competition as the bowls are at fault with all these conference tie ins that bring us the same tired conference match ups each year, Notre Dame would take a positive step in joining a conference that is on the up swing in football.

If Notre Dame continues to take up the much needed ninth football position in the 16 team league, then, the following should take place immediately.

Notre Dame should be banned against taking any of the Big East bowl slots on any level.

Let the bowls find a replacement for the Big East(i.e. Gator). The momentum with the perfect bowl record is a 'perfect' time to make a stand and kick Notre Dame out of the Big East bowl rotation and tell the bowls to take a hike if they don't like it.

It should be 8 conference games for Notre Dame or no Big East bowl deals. End of story.

Since the Gator will probably be gone anyway, start a New Years Big East bowl and use the NFL network just to get a second Big East team on TV on New Years Day. NYC is backing the Big East big time in football at the moment. Giants statium outside should provide the Big East advantage point until a dome stadium is build in NYC.

Future Big East Bowls games?

1st place BCS

2nd place New Year Day Big Apple Bowl on NFL network to get off the ground (possible tie in with MWC champion to play Big East 2nd place team

3rd place Charlotte Bowl (another Big East win over the ACC)

4th place Texas bowl (help start the build up the NFL network Big East new years day bowl hype)

5th place Int Bowl (nice location in the Big East region)

6th place Big East team to Birmingham Bowl

With 9 football members, the Big East can support 6 bowls.

Since we are on the Big Ten Thread and the 12th member for the Big Ten has got to be "Missouri".

Just because the Big 12 went 3 and 7 in bowls this year and lost its BCS game.

Time for both the Big East and Big Ten to make a move with the performance of the bowls by conference this year and the momentum that may follow is especially in favor of the Big East.

If the Big Ten approached Missouri and the Big East gave Notre Dame a no option plan, Notre Dame just make jump on board with the Big Ten.

The Big East would then be open to fill Notre Dame's wasted membership space with a much neeeded 9th football member in for all sports. UMass?









Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:33 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540

Quote:
With the Big East perfect bowl record (don't care if its the competition as the bowls are at fault with all these conference tie ins that bring us the same tired conference match ups each year, Notre Dame would take a positive step in joining a conference that is on the up swing in football.


Lash, good point about the same tired matchups. Related to this is the fact that the "plus one" concept seems to be gaining ground & there have been a lot of hints that it will be implemented after the current TV contract runs out in 2010. The problem is that with all of the bowl tie-ins, only the Rose Bowl & whatever bowl picks the Big East champ will have a matchup of conference champs. So how will the bowls resolve much beyond what we already have?


Quote:
If Notre Dame continues to take up the much needed ninth football position in the 16 team league, then, the following should take place immediately.

Notre Dame should be banned against taking any of the Big East bowl slots on any level.

Let the bowls find a replacement for the Big East(i.e. Gator). The momentum with the perfect bowl record is a 'perfect' time to make a stand and kick Notre Dame out of the Big East bowl rotation and tell the bowls to take a hike if they don't like it.


In theory I agree with you, but don't you think that the Big East would have gotten these bowl tie-ins on their own without ND in the package if they could have? I'm assuming that the only reason ND is part of the deal is because the BE couldn't sell themselves without ND. If the BE keeps up its success, this may change when new contracts come up for negotiation. However, it's still drawing power that counts with the bowls to agreater extent than success on the field. And no one in the big East draws as well as ND either in the stands or on TV.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:09 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2686
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Friarfan, the Midwest is root cause of what is wrong with college football post season and college football in general.

Unlike college basketball that is run by the NCAA, college football is run by TV and the bowls.

The Big Ten fans are awarded because they travel in large numbers to escape the cold and have a fun in the sun vacation. Nothing wrong with this except the fans are not the ones going to practice every day, being hit on the field week after week. All the fans have to do is show up and drink some beer and enjoy the game.

Notre Dame fans are awarded simply because their fans tune on TV to watch Notre Dame get its behind kicked in over matched bowls each year.

This year the bowl season proved once again how bad college football post season really is or how better it really could be if changes were made.

Big Ten was very overrated. Michigan clobbered a very overrated Notre Dame and was then considered Championship worthy. Thank goodness the Florida coach and SEC stepped in a put a stop to the Big Ten rematch idea or we would have no clue how deceiving college football really was this year.

After the bowls have been played, we know that Notre Dame was not close to the ranking received to get a Sugar bowl invite.

We know Michigan was very overrated in a very overrated Big Ten conference this year. A couple games Michigan barely beat a MAC school. Yet the polls clearly kept the school near the top. Michigan got a second Big Ten BCS bid by perception.

Rutgers was left to play in the Texas bowl because of the perception of ability of fans that travel and not what the team performed on the field.

WVU and Rutgers were clearly head and shoulders above any of the true eastern college football teams, yet Penn State got rewarded with a New Years game in Tampa. Boston College got a better bowl deal by going to Charlotte.

If you compare basketball to football, the Big Ten only got three bids a couple years back. CBS did not appreciate that as the ratings for NCAA games were way down in the Midwest. It did not matter as the best basketball teams were playing in post season. CBS did not have a say in which teams played in the post season for basketball.

College football post season and the BCS does not have to change drastically. With a few improvements we could have a really exciting post season that actually awards the correct teams that deserve it.

College football could take the top 32 teams in some type of BCS ranking and schedule them for 16 of the current bowls.

After 32 teams any bowl award is really for the fans and to help those teams with practice for the next season. Again no problem you could have all football schools play with winning records in the minor bowls.

The top four teams in the rankings (some what subjective without a 16 team playoff) would play for the right to play in the championship game after New Years.

The other 28 teams would match 5 verses 6, 7 verses 8, 9 verses 10 ..... 31 verses 32.

If the voters of polls are doing their job, most of those matches would be fairly evenly matched and fun to watch.

The 16 bowls could be selected from the top paying bowls.

Now will the guys running college football come clean and change. No way they give up the scam that brings in huge bucks each year and cheats the good teams that deserve much better.

Actually we can blame the US courts for allowing college football to be taken over by TV.

As for the Big East and Notre Dame bowl deals.

I think the Big East did great this year by winning in bowls by playing less superior teams. The same teams that were rewarded for being in a conference with travel based fans.

At the same time, the Big Ten can not have many years of this type of bowl performance and expect multiple BCS bids.

Over time this will help the Big East with perception in winning bowls. No way you need to keep the Gator Bowl if it requires handing Notre Dame a deal with no return. 3 Big East games that Notre Dame would probably have scheduled anyone is not a compromise for the Big East Football Conference. Just another scam.

I am not sure when the Big East bowl deals are up for renewal, however, Notre Dame should not be part of the deal regardless if a Big East team has to play a bowl in South America.

There is a wake up call and everyone is starting to see the scam we have with the college football post season.

We can thank the Big Ten and Notre Dame for showing us the way this year.

With that said, Notre Dame is much more like the Big Ten and less like the Big East.














Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:33 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540
Lash, remember that the BCS expanded to 5 bowls & 10 teams this year. ND was clearly not one of the handful of elite teams, but beyond that it's hard to say where they fit. They were ranked #11 by the BCS before the bowls. The only other team that was eligible to go instead of them was West Virginia because of the rule against more than 2 teams from a conference & the requirement of a top 14 ranking.

So, if you're saying that ND didn't deserve to go to a BCS bowl, you must be saying that West Virginia did. I wouldn't have had a problem with West Virginia going instead, but I couldn't really complain about the choice of ND since Rutgers was the only ranked team that West Virginia beat all year - & they needed OT & a bad call despite their home field advantage to do it. Add to that West Virginia's loss to South Florida despite the fact that they had home field advantage & I can't argue with the ND selection. ND may have been routed by 3 teams from the AP top 7, but they beat everyone they were supposed to beat including one of the ranked teams they played & didn't lose to anyone of the caliber of USF. With the benefit of the bowl results, we also see that West Virginia struggled to beat Georgia Tech, a team that ND also beat in a close game. So, I don't see anything in that result that would contradict ND's selection for the Sugar Bowl instead of West Virginia.

Of course the Sugar Bowl could have taken Boise State or Louisville since they got to pick ahead of the Orange & Fiesta Bowls, but now we'd just be playing musical chairs with the bowl games & ND still would have gone to one of the BCS games anyway. I don't think that it would have mattered much since they're all meaningless exhibition games anyway. And I'm not sure that Boise State or Louisville would have fared any better against LSU than ND did - especially in light of the fact that this was essentially a home game for LSU. But competitiveness wasn't the basis for the selection. Clearly the Sugar Bowl selected the opponent that they thought would generate the greatest revenue. And that's the basic problem with the bowl system, as you point out. Fans should enjoy their conference seasons & see the bowls as the meaningless exhibitions that they are.

I agree with everyting else that you so elegantly stated. We need a college football playoff. Anything else is bush league & corrupt. Athletics is supposed to be decided by competition on the field; only political campaigns should be decided by voters at the polls.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:50 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2686
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Friarfan, I am not sure that Rutgers or West Virginia deserved to play in the Sugar Bowl. Maybe Arkansas, Auburn, California, or Wisconsin would have been more deserving teams?

The one thing I am certain on is Notre Dame did not deserve to play in the Sugar bowl.

You are correct on a 16 team playoff is needed to change the image of the bush league college football play off season.

After Notre Dame barley escaped Ga Tech and was demolished at home by Michigan, the talking heads on TV that influence the polls continue to promote ND as a potential National contender.

What a forest or snow job or possibly just bad analysis! Again a playoff is the only solution.

If Notre Dame would have played an 8 game Big East schedule this year, my prediction of order of finish would have been:

1 Louisville to the BCS Orange
2 WV to Gator
3 Rutgers to Charlotte Bowl (Navy should have played in SD bowl)
4 Notre Dame to Texas bowl (possibly win over Kansas State)
5 South Florida to Birmingham
6 Cincy to Toronto

Again Notre Dame would have lost at least two road games to the top 5 teams of the Big East.

My 2007 prediction if Notre Dame were a full member would be:

1 WV with lots of offense returning
1 Louisville (maybe a tie with WV?)
3 South Florida (surprise team for 2007)
4 Rutgers
5 Notre Dame (this is no joke where they would be projected)
6 Cincinnati
7 Pitt (could be a surprise team as well and rank higher)
8 Syracuse (starting to come back)
9 UConn (some team has to be in the bottom of emerging stronger conference)

BCS pre season conference rankings for 2007

1 SEC
2 Big East (would you believe this a couple years back)
3 Pac 10
4 Big Ten
4 Tie Big 12
6 ACC (finally taking the Big East place after expansion)

Multiple BCS bids go to SEC, Pac 10 and finally Big East

MWC should get an at large bid for the second time

One BCS bid only ACC and Big 12

Absolutely no BCS bid - Notre Dame



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:18 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540

Quote:
Friarfan, I am not sure that Rutgers or West Virginia deserved to play in the Sugar Bowl. Maybe Arkansas, Auburn, California, or Wisconsin would have been more deserving teams?


Anti-Notre Dame bias clouds the mind. ;) ;D

My intent here is not to defend Notre Dame, but to be objective.

Arkansas, Auburn, & Wisconsin were all ineligible for a BCS bowl after LSU was picked at-large because of the rule that no more than 2 teams from the same conference can go to the BCS bowls in the same year. (The Big Ten already had two teams in by automatic qualification.) Arkansas & Auburn may have been more deserving but they weren't eligible. Wisconsin was the biggest fraud in college football this year. Other than Michigan, they didn't play anybody. They didn't play Ohio State in their Big Ten competition & they didn't play anyone non-conference - Bowling Green, San Diego State, Western Illinois, & Buffalo.

Cal would have been an interesting alternative to ND if they had been voted high enough in the polls to qualify, which they weren't, because they tied USC for the Pac Ten title. However, they lost the only good non-conference opponent they played (Tennessee) & they lost to USC almost as badly as Notre Dame did. So, with one more loss than ND, I don't see what they brought to the table for anyone to complain that they should have been taken over ND. I wouldn't have complained if Cal was taken, but I can't complain that they weren't either.


Quote:
The one thing I am certain on is Notre Dame did not deserve to play in the Sugar bowl.


The problem with that certainty is that someone had to play the game & I'm still waiting for someone to tell me who the alternative might have been that was clearly a better choice than Notre Dame.


Quote:
You are correct on a 16 team playoff is needed to change the image of the bush league college football play off season.

After Notre Dame barley escaped Ga Tech and was demolished at home by Michigan, the talking heads on TV that influence the polls continue to promote ND as a potential National contender.


I think that reporters are the most easily swayed by the talking heads, but the AP poll isn't used for BCS selection any more. So, who are the weak minded whose votes are so easily swayed? The other coaches who vote in the coaches' poll? The experts on the Harris panel? Check the list. There are some pretty impressive names there. Roy Kramer. Jake Crouthame. John Toner. These guys know a thing or two about college football & their votes are published every week on the Harris website for all the world to see - unlike the coaches. Are the BCS computers being influenced by the talking heads?

The problem with the "media made me do it" theory is that the computers & both polls were all remarkably consistent in their ranking of Notre Dame this year. The problem with ND's record this year is that they lost to 3 teams in the AP top 7 very badly, showing that they didn't belong among that group. But they beat Penn State, Georgia Tech, & UCLA - all of whom were ranked in one or another of the final polls this year - & they beat everyone on their schedule below those three. So, the were clearly better than teams ranked in the 20's. ND was one of a very few teams had no bad losses.


Quote:
What a forest or snow job or possibly just bad analysis! Again a playoff is the only solution.

If Notre Dame would have played an 8 game Big East schedule this year, my prediction of order of finish would have been:

1 Louisville to the BCS Orange
2 WV to Gator
3 Rutgers to Charlotte Bowl (Navy should have played in SD bowl)
4 Notre Dame to Texas bowl (possibly win over Kansas State)
5 South Florida to Birmingham
6 Cincy to Toronto

Again Notre Dame would have lost at least two road games to the top 5 teams of the Big East.


But they're not in the Big East, so what difference does it make?

They may well have lost road games to any of the top three although we have no way of knowing how many road games they would have played. On what basis can we say that they would have lost road games to USF & Cincinnati - even if they had played either of them on the road? Remember that ND beat Georgia Tech on the road - a better team than either Cincy or USF. They also demolished Navy on the road. Before we take Navy too lightly, remember that they came within 1 point of BC in their bowl game & destroyed a UConn team on the road that beat Pitt & played Cincy to a 3-point game in Big East competition.

What we do know is that Rutgers & West Virginia went out & lost to Cincy & USF respectivelyand that ND didn't lose to anyone on their schedule that was ranked at the same level as either of these two. Note that West Virginia's loss to USF came at home.

I don't see ND losing more than 2 games vs a 2006 Big East schedule even with adverse home-road match-ups. If they were in the league, someone in the Big East would have played them in South Bend & that someone would have come away with a loss. So the record(s) of someone in the Big East's top 3 wouldn't have looked as good. At least one someone would have had 1 more loss.

Bowl selections wouldn't have been made based on how teams finished in the Big East. As long as a team finishes within 1 game of a team ahead of it in its conference, it can be taken by a bowl. ND would have been taken by a bowl ahead of a Big East team even if it had one more loss simply because of the increased revenue it would bring to that bowl. Not fair, but that's the way that stupid system works.


Quote:
My 2007 prediction if Notre Dame were a full member would be:

1 WV with lots of offense returning
1 Louisville (maybe a tie with WV?)
3 South Florida (surprise team for 2007)
4 Rutgers
5 Notre Dame (this is no joke where they would be projected)
6 Cincinnati
7 Pitt (could be a surprise team as well and rank higher)
8 Syracuse (starting to come back)
9 UConn (some team has to be in the bottom of emerging stronger conference)

BCS pre season conference rankings for 2007

1 SEC
2 Big East (would you believe this a couple years back)
3 Pac 10
4 Big Ten
4 Tie Big 12
6 ACC (finally taking the Big East place after expansion)

Multiple BCS bids go to SEC, Pac 10 and finally Big East

MWC should get an at large bid for the second time

One BCS bid only ACC and Big 12

Absolutely no BCS bid - Notre Dame



Last edited by friarfan on Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:23 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1552
Anything critical of Notre Dame is perceived as bias? This school does not fail to critique their options which have been maximized and indeed unique.

The Big Ten, if looking for #12, which they say they are not, needs to explore someone other than Notre Dame. There are options.

The quality of bowls and placement of Big East teams is impacted by the Notre Dame factor which is heavily one sided.

The Big East football group will grow to their potential when they have shed the weight of their old coats.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:53 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2686
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Friarfan, you are correct on qualifications of the BCS would not allow more than two teams from any given conference to gain a BCS bid, then again what does qualifications have to do with what is deserving in college football?

I always go against the grain of the folks running college football because fairness is part of my thought process and college football leaders thoughts center on greed and excess.

As for Notre Dame, I may be one of those rare guys that is really not polarized in my view of Notre Dame. Again with fairness in mind, if Notre Dame wants to remain independent, then so be it. Do not have any problem with Notre Dame getting a BCS bid and all the revenue to keep as long as the bid was selected on a fair playing level.

I do beg to ask this question: As a fan of Notre Dame, don't you want the school to eventually win a bowl?


Again you are correct on the Big East bowl selection process can take a team that is only one position behind and Notre Dame most likely would have been taken in a higher profile Big East bowl.

What can the Big East football schools control?

The Big East football schools can and should prevent Notre Dame from taking a bowl bid simply by leaving Notre Dame out of future Big East football bowl negotiations.

This is becomming more practical with this years football and bowl success. If the trend continues, Notre Dame's free ride may be soon be over.

I would prefer to have a start up New Year Big Apple bowl in NYC that only takes a full Big East football school over a Gator/Sun deal that requires Notre Dame to be part of the contract.

Sometimes you can not give the store away just to get a customer?

Leaving Notre Dame out of future BE bowl deals would go a long way toward moving Notre Dame into a football conference like all the other division one football schools. This would create a more fair comparison of Notre Dame against a conference schedule and ranking for BCS selection.


As for Wisconsin, not sure I agree with you. The Badgers beat the 2nd place SEC team. The SEC was the best BCS conference top to bottom this year than in any recent memory of any other conference.

The third place SEC team that barely beat Arkansas whipped up really bad on your Notre Dame team. I would be a little careful on stating how overrated Wisonsin was as it further proves my point on Notre Dame and why the school should not have received an at large bid.




Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:15 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540

Quote:
As for Notre Dame, I may be one of those rare guys that is really not polarized in my view of Notre Dame. Again with fairness in mind, if Notre Dame wants to remain independent, then so be it. Do not have any problem with Notre Dame getting a BCS bid and all the revenue to keep as long as the bid was selected on a fair playing level.

I do beg to ask this question: As a fan of Notre Dame, don't you want the school to eventually win a bowl?


Lash, my friend, I'm not a Notre Dame fan. I could care less if they win or lose. My rooting interests are Manhattan & UConn, where I did undergrad & grad studies respectively and PC, BC, & Fordham where my kids went to school. Whenever any of these play ND, I'm rooting against the Irish. When ND plays someone else, I'm usually not paying attention.


Quote:
Again you are correct on the Big East bowl selection process can take a team that is only one position behind and Notre Dame most likely would have been taken in a higher profile Big East bowl.

What can the Big East football schools control?

The Big East football schools can and should prevent Notre Dame from taking a bowl bid simply by leaving Notre Dame out of future Big East football bowl negotiations.

This is becomming more practical with this years football and bowl success. If the trend continues, Notre Dame's free ride may be soon be over.


I agree. I believe that the Big East needed ND to get the tie-ins they currently have under contract. If they can cut deals without ND in the future, they should. If they continue to have the success in the future that they had this year, their prospects should improve. Of course, their prospects didn't look so bright at the time these deals were made.


Quote:
I would prefer to have a start up New Year Big Apple bowl in NYC that only takes a full Big East football school over a Gator/Sun deal that requires Notre Dame to be part of the contract.

Sometimes you can not give the store away just to get a customer?


It would be great if things work out the way you describe.


Quote:
Leaving Notre Dame out of future BE bowl deals would go a long way toward moving Notre Dame into a football conference like all the other division one football schools. This would create a more fair comparison of Notre Dame against a conference schedule and ranking for BCS selection.


As for Wisconsin, not sure I agree with you. The Badgers beat the 2nd place SEC team. The SEC was the best BCS conference top to bottom this year than in any recent memory of any other conference.

The third place SEC team that barely beat Arkansas whipped up really bad on your Notre Dame team. I would be a little careful on stating how overrated Wisonsin was as it further proves my point on Notre Dame and why the school should not have received an at large bid.


Lash, no one thought that Arkansas was the #2 team in the SEC. They won the West division only by a quirk in the schedule, i.e. LSU had to play Florida during the regular season & they didn't. Florida gave LSU its second loss, handing the division to Arkansas. Had they played the same scheule, they would have had the same number of losses - as they did after the conference championship game in which Arkansas also lost to Florida. This would have resulted in a division tie & LSU had the tie breaker by virtue of its win over Arkansas.

I wouldn't put my money on Wisconsin's win over Arkansas to give credibility to Wisconsin's ranking. This is the same Arkansas team that was beaten by USC by 36 points. The same Arkansas team that beat Vanderbilt & Alabama, two of the worst teams in the SEC, by a combined total of 3 points! Ironically 3 is also the number of conference wins that these two teams combined for. This was an inconsistent Arkansas team that was capable of having some bad days. The Wisconsin game was one of them.

My point about Wisconsin is that their SOS was ranked 81st by the BCS. They barely got by Iowa & Illinois with the combined margin of victory being 9 points. These two combined to win 3 games in the Big Ten. I'll give Wisconsin credit for the Arkansas win, but the fact of the matter is that the reason they had only one loss is that they had no one on the schedule who could challenge them this year except for Michigan, who beat them by 2 touchdowns.

No matter how good Arkansas & Wisconsin were, however, it's irrelevant to Notre Dame's at-large selection by the Sugar Bowl because neither of these two could were eligible under the BCS rules. And it's not like the Sugar Bowl picked an 8-4 ND team over someone clearly more deserving.

For the life of me & in all honesty, I can't understand why all the fuss about the ND selection. They were 10-2 when they were selected. There was no one else with a better record available. Anyone with that record against that schedule would have been ranked just as high. Sure they looked terrible in their two regular season losses, but as a result they were dropped out of the top 10 in the rankings. West Virginia was the only other eligible team that met the criterion of a top 14 ranking. They played an easier schedule, had only a lucky 2-point home win over Rutgers against ranked teams, & had a bad loss at home to South Florida.

If we want to blame bias in the polls & claim that ND was voted to a higher ranking than they deserved & that someone else should have been in the top 14, who would that have been if not ND or WVU? ACC runner-up Georgia Tech? Notre Dame beat them at Gerogia Tech. Big XII runner-up Nebraska? Their loss to Oklahoma State, who tied for last in the Big XII South, ruled them out. Pac Ten runner-up Cal? Same problem: they lost to a bad Arizona team.

Help me out here. You can't just say that Notre Dame didn't deserve a BCS bid. You have to replace them in one of the BCS bowls with someone else. All of the other suspects were also flawed this year - & as far as I can see, flawed worse than Notre Dame.

As bad as Notre Dame looked in their losses, what they had going for them is that they hadn't lost to an unranked team all year. Every other candidate for that last BCS spot had at least one such bad loss on their resume.

And it's not like Notre Dame hadn't faced teams that were capable of big wins. They beat the same UCLA team that knocked off USC, probably costing them a shot at the national title. They beat the same Georgia Tech team that had upset Virginia Tech when they were the favorites to win the ACC. And they beat the same Penn State team that surprised SEC East runner-up Tennessee in the Outback Bowl. ND didn't stumble against any of these nor did they against pretty decent Purdue & Navy teams - the same Navy team that put a scare into BC in the Meineke Car Care Bowl when they were up by 8 going into the fourth quarter before losing by 1-point.

Thanks for listening.


Last edited by friarfan on Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:37 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:57 pm
Posts: 1289
Location: Portland! (and about time!)
One of the radio guys I listen to these days has been riding Notre Dame, basically for having too HIGH of academic standards to be a football power.

Maybe or maybe not related, from the same man: observing prior to the 2000? Fiesta Bowl that Oregon State was simply bigger than Notre Dame, prompting the lad to place a call to a friend begging him to put lots of money on Oregon State.

Oregon freaking State.

I'm tempted to say that many three-loss teams would probably have walloped Notre Dame in a bowl game this year. That has nothing to do with the question Lash poses about attaining BCS standards. If I understand this as a tweak of the BCS, more power to you.

Maybe the Big Ten is better off with Rutgers in the long run.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:32 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540

Quote:
I'm tempted to say that many three-loss teams would probably have walloped Notre Dame in a bowl game this year.


Pounder, I'm glad that you didn't give in to that temptation. ;D

I'm sure that many, many fans would agree that many 3-loss teams would have walloped Notre Dame in a bowl game. That would seem to be the conventional wisdom this year.

For the life of me, I can't fathom why people would think that would be the case once they stop to think about it. I guess they just got tired of a team with such high expectations looking so inept against other top teams.

The frustrating thing about Notre Dame is that once they got out of the Top Ten, they beat everyone else they played - including ranked teams. Which is why people had the high expectations of them that they did. After all, they were a 1-loss team going into the last game of the regular season.

Was it such a disgrace for them to lose that last game to USC by 20 points? Apparently so. Yet, Arkansas lost to USC by 36 & people continued to think they were a pretty good team even with 4 losses. Michigan lost to USC almost as badly as ND - by 14 - & they were ranked in the Top Ten. Cal also lost to USC by 14, so I guess USC was capable of making top teams besides ND look bad.

How about Notre Dame's two other losses by 26 & 27 to Michigan & LSU respectively. Pretty bad. But then Michigan beat Wisconsin by 14 & Wisconsin was ranked in the Top Ten anyway.

LSU didn't blow out any other top teams, so maybe the Irish should be ashamed of this loss.But LSU's strength was defense, so they didn't run up big offensive numbers against the best teams on their schedule. Charlie Weis decided for the high risk/high reward strategy in the first half against LSU. He gambled & he lost. LSU got at least one extra touchdown in the first half as a result, helping to make the final margin of victory greater than it would have been. LSU also had home field advantage in that bowl game. It was the first time all year that they had home field advantage against a top team. By a quirk of the schedule, they played all of their best opponents on the road. This helped hold down the LSU margin of victory in these games or maybe they would have blown out someon else.

So, losses by wide margins can happen even to very good teams when they go up against elite opponents. Somehow, people seem to notice it more when it happens to Notre Dame & to hold it against them more severely.

So, do these bad losses to 3 Top Ten teams mean that ND would have been walloped by a lot of 3-loss teams? Is there any basis for this in the record of these teams?

There weren't a lot of 3-loss teams to begin with. There were six from BCS conferences. Let's see how they compared to Notre Dame.

#11 Oklahoma - They took their turn at getting blown out (by 18 to #13 Texas), but they did something ND didn't do - lost to an unranked team. Their third loss was to Boise State. I watched that game & as plucky as Boise was, they were physically overmatched. It doesn't speak well for Oklahoma that they lost that game. They didn't beat a single ranked team all year - much less blow one out. So, what makes anyone think they would blow out ND? They & ND had no common opponents.

#13 Texas - Like ND, they lost badly when they came up against a Top Ten team - 17-point loss to Ohio State. They beat up on Oklahoma by 18 - the only other ranked team they played. However, they also lost to two unranked teams - Kansas State & Texas A&M - something that ND didn't do. Only the Oklahoma win offers evidence that they could have walloped ND while the 3 losses were all bad, suggesting that they weren't any better than ND, who also was able to come up with a win over a ranked team once they got out of the top Ten. Two of their losses were worse than any ND suffered. No common opponents.

#14 Cal - Beaten up by #25 Tennessee in a 17-point loss in contrast to ND's 24-point win over #24 Penn State. They also lost to unranked Arizona. No unranked losses for ND. Against common opponents, they both lost to USC - Cal by 14 - & they both beat UCLA & Stanford - ND by a combined 25 points, Cal by 23. In Cal's favor, they beat #23 Oregon State by 28, so they were capable of blowing out a ranked team. The question is which Cal team would show up if they played ND - the one that blew out OSU or the one that lost to Arizona & was itself blown out by Tennessee?

#17/18 Wake Forest - To their credit, kept it close for most of the game vs #6 Louisville before they lost by 11. Something ND couldn't do against a Top Ten team. However, they also showed that they could be blown out by a lower ranked team when they lost to #18 Virginia Tech by 21. Even worse, they lost to unranked Clemson by 10. Against common opponents, they beat Georgia Tech in a close game, just as ND had, but they also kept it close against North Carolina in a 7-point win - a team that ND blew out by 19. Notre dame had problems against teams when they were physically mismatched. Wake had great coaching & won with guile, but they didn't have great physical talent. I can't see ND losing to these guys.

#18/19 Virginia Tech - Blew out #17 Wake by 21, much as ND blew out #24 Penn State by 24. So, they were capable of a blow out against a ranked team. However, against the other two ranked teams they played, they lost by 19 to #20 BC & by 7 to #23 Georgia. Against common opponents, they lost to unranked Georgia Tech at home by 11 - a team ND had beaten on the road by 4 & like ND, they blew out North Carolina. Virginia Tech was an underachieving team that overwhelmed Wake with superior physical talent, but who failed just about every other test put to them - & failed against teams that were not nearly as good as the teams ND lost to.

#20 Boston College - Demolished Virginia Tech by 19, but lost to Wake, the other ranked team they played, & they lost to NC State. There are 2 things to know about this BC team. With the conference title on the line, they choked in the big game for the second time in 3 years against a team they should have beaten. Two years ago, it was Syracuse in the big East; this time it was Miami. The other thing to know is that they have a long history of losing to Miami, a team they consider a rival, but they couldn't take advantage of a Miami team that was down & out. Well, BC has a long history of mostly losing to ND, a team they consider a rival. Consider as well that BC had to coome from behind in the fourth quarter to steal a win from Navy by 1-point in their bowl match-up. ND beat Navy by 24. There is no way this BC teamwould have beaten ND this particular year.

Notre Dame might have lost to one of these teams, but for the most part they were all flawed teams - just as Notre Dame was. To my eyes, they were all flawed worse than Notre Dame & I don't think that ND would have lost many games to this group - if any. And I certainly wouldn't have expected any of them to win in a blow out. I'm not saying it wouldn't have happened because some of them were capable of it, I just think a whoopin' would have been unexpected. Getting blown out by USC, LSU, & Michigan doesn't make you dog meat against the next tier of teams out there.


Last edited by friarfan on Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:13 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:57 pm
Posts: 1289
Location: Portland! (and about time!)
Answers: Texas clobbers Notre Dame. Cal clobbers Notre Dame.

Oklahoma's achilles heel is pass defense; not too much different from Notre Dame, frankly. Cal's was overconfidence in Knoxville. Texas and Cal have size and speed superior to Notre Dame EVERYWHERE.

Oklahoma would still beat Notre Dame 7 out of 10 times.

In having to cover the Cal passing game, Notre Dame would end up either not committing enough people to Marshawn Lynch or ending up challenging Nate Longshore to beat them. Tennessee had the speed to beat Cal. Notre Dame isn't there.

I'm going to hesitate saying that even Boise State would push them around... but I will say that there's a former Bronco offensive lineman on the NFL all-rookie team and at least two more pro prospects on the 2006 line. They've also had a habit of delivering defensive backs (Chris Carr, Quentin Mikell) to the NFL... but Boise State's weakness against big schools is in the defensive front 7. Frankly, I'm not sure Notre Dame isn't the physical equal of Boise State.

In addition, you probably don't want to ask how I'd evaluate the Big East this last year. Let's just say that I'm more accurate believing in cycles than in trends.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2005 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 134  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group