Post-season Play-offs

[Spence]

They aren't as bad as Spence claims. They were 5-6 last year, and nearly beat Oklahoma. He suggested they were 'basement' material, but the facts show otherwise.

See this is why we can never find middle ground. Baylor was 5-6 last year and you think that isn't that bad.

Sorry to interrupt this delightful debate. Just wanted to make a point here. TCU is scheduling LSU in 2013 and 2014. We have no idea where either of these programs may be that far down the road. LSU could go 1-11 in 2012 we just don't know. That is what happened to teams that had Syracuse and Purdue on their schedules in 2005.

While there is no way to predict whether LSU will be good or not, it is a pretty good bet they will be. You can really compare Purdue and Syracuse to LSU. They are once in a while teams, while LSU is an "most of the time" school. (for lack of a better term)

Everyone knows the teams you need to get on your schedule to get the SOS into BCS territory. You can pick Baylor, Stanford, Purdue, and Stanford or you can pick LSU, Florida, Michigan, and Virginia Tech. All 8 teams are from BCS conferences, but really that is where the comparison stops.

If all the teams from the MWC would schedule some of the big boys and win their share of the games, the over all strength of the conference would go up. Scheduling teams like Baylor isn't going to have the same effect. If the MWC wants to step up a class in CFB they are going to have to do more of what I am saying or they won't get the respect they want nationally. That is just the way it is.

[Jason G]

I agree with the points all of you are making. My only point was that you really don't know what you are scheduling so far in advance.
I remember a few years back Toledo went out and scheduled the absolute toughest schedule they could. That year they went to Penn State and dominated the Nittany Lions 24-8. This was a win Toledo thought would push them (and in turn the MAC) into more of a national player. PSU, though, went on to have a terrible year and all the hype for Toledo and the MAC fizzled away as the season went on.

Also, a couple of years ago the MAC had a banner year out of conference with numerous wins over BCS schools and very good non-BCS schools. But what did they get in return for this? BCS conference schools dropping MAC schools from their schedules or refusing to let the MAC schools play against them at home. That is the most frustrating thing in all of college football for me. People always assume (probably rightly) that MAC schools are of lesser caliber than most. They say if you want to get better then schedule tougher opponents. All the tougher opponents, though, do not want to play MAC schools, especially not in a hostile environment. So how does the league take a step up when the rulers of the roost are actually the ones taking its opportunity away or at least not affording it?

[Spence]

I agree with the points all of you are making. My only point was that you really don't know what you are scheduling so far in advance.
I remember a few years back Toledo went out and scheduled the absolute toughest schedule they could. That year they went to Penn State and dominated the Nittany Lions 24-8. This was a win Toledo thought would push them (and in turn the MAC) into more of a national player. PSU, though, went on to have a terrible year and all the hype for Toledo and the MAC fizzled away as the season went on.

I think the MAC does an excellent job of scheduling. Most years they are near the top, as far as talent goes, of all the mid majors. They play the toughest OOC schedules in the country.

Some schools do shy away from the MAC for the reasons you are talking about, that is why SOS is so important. If more weight was given to who you play that wouldn't be a problem. I have a lot of respect for the MAC, they try and do it the right was.

Jason, Ohio State has never dodged the MAC(although they have never played any MAC team on the road). We usually play at least one MAC team a year and usually it is an in state MAC team.(keeping the money in the state) The deck is stacked against the mid majors, but if the non BCS conferences keep scheduling like the MAC has and start to win on a consistant basis, they will eventually get where they want to be.

[colorado_loves_football]

We're finally getting some 'fresh' insight into this debate. Thank you Jason & Rolltide for your perspectives. Baylor, obviously still has a lot of work to do before they are viewed as a Big XII 'competitor'. But, winning against Oklahoma St, might be the impetus they need to kick off 2006 with a 'bang'. Tha'ts why I worry TCU might lose, their first home game, in Waco, Texas.
As far as Bayor is concerned they were improved over the previous year, but I agree 'wins' are what matter. They also lost, badly, to Texas 62-0, and Texas Tech 28-0 in Waco. Those are heavy losses, but somehow they managed to close out the year with a win. Actually, Bayor was sort of a 'sticking' point with me, because they beat some of the same teams TCU did, only exception being Oklahoma, and even that was an OT loss, after Baylor missed an opportunity to win it outright.
So, it's possible Baylor was as good as TCU was, competitively-speaking, and that doesn't bode well for my argument TCU 'earned' the right to be selected to the BCS. But, if nothing else, it will 'test' TCU, in terms of playing a Big XII opponent, in their own stadium, much like Oklahoma did, last year.
No, Baylor wasn't any kind of 'powerhouse'. But, they were significantly better than they were in 2004, by-and-large. They showed similar progress to SMU. Basically, for TCU it will be like playing SMU, again.
I don't mind that comparison. If TCU wins it won't necessarily 'secure' them a BCS invitation, but I think it will do a lot for their confidence going against Texas Tech. So, I for one, believe TCU will beat Baylor, in Waco.

[Spence]

I don't mind that comparison. If TCU wins it won't necessarily 'secure' them a BCS invitation, but I think it will do a lot for their confidence going against Texas Tech. So, I for one, believe TCU will beat Baylor, in Waco.

Beating Baylor would be a solid win for TCU. Beating Texas Tech would add another step. I'm not dismissing Baylor because they aren't in the upper end of the B-12. They still play D-1 football, just not at the same level as the top level teams.

[colorado_loves_football]

I don't think Baylor is great, but I do know how much they have improved. I saw them play UAB at legion field a couple years ago, and they were terrible. UAB lit them up for 55 points I believe. I think it was 55-14 but I am not very solid on these numbers. Last year though, they were alot better as CLF said. They would be a nice win for TCU, and the game could be close.

Baylor is obviously a lot better than the previous year, when they were lambasted by Alabama-Birmingham, but UAB actually wasn't too bad that year, if memory serves. They were the pre-season favorite to win C-USA 'east' but mostly disappointed, although they found a way to beat Texas-El Paso at the end.
I don't know how good Baylor is, in all honesty. They were good, early in the year, then fizzled out somewhat before finally capping the year off with a win, against Oklahoma St. I'm not sure Iowa St, is the best 'measure' of a team, either. They were inconsistent. The most interesting thing about Baylor is they beat some of the same teams TCU beat. They even beat SMU, in the season opener, so it's possible Baylor was as good a team, if not better, than TCU was, competitively-speaking.
(I hate to admit it when the facts support it).
But, Baylor lost to Oklahoma, in OT, so there is still the element of 'doubt' with respect to the two teams. That's why I like seeing them play, both will likely be prepared to play their best football, unlike the excused made for Oklahoma. Baylor won't be caught unprepared.
TCU not only needs to beat Baylor, in Waco, they need to beat Texas Tech, in Ft. Worth, to give them a shot at the BCS.
They can maybe afford one MWC loss. I think they will lose to Utah, in SLC. TCU never goes through the year undefeated, I've learned that the hard way. That's the game I predict they'll lose.

[Jason G]

Spence, I agree with all your points on the MAC and certainly agree with your statement about things being stacked against schools in leagues like the MAC. Often I think the biggest thing stacked against the league is just the general perception that the MAC is worse or more inferior than it truly is. This often shows up in the human polls. I know the league will get there eventually though.

Still it would be nice if schools like Ohio State would at least agree to a game with a school like Akron where Akron was the home team. The Zips do have the second largest (to OSU of course) stadium in Ohio, and didn't OSU play at Cincy a couple years ago? Or was that at Paul Brown Stadium? Speaking of that, how about OSU or Michigan or Penn State against Kent State or Akron in Cleveland Browns Stadium?

Well, I guess for now I'll just be glad about the Zips having a game in Happy Valley this fall and our date here in Columbus in 2007 (a rematch from Tressel's first game at OSU).

[Spence]

Still it would be nice if schools like Ohio State would at least agree to a game with a school like Akron where Akron was the home team. The Zips do have the second largest (to OSU of course) stadium in Ohio, and didn't OSU play at Cincy a couple years ago? Or was that at Paul Brown Stadium? Speaking of that, how about OSU or Michigan or Penn State against Kent State or Akron in Cleveland Browns Stadium?

The game in Cincy was at PB Stadium. It was the only way they could make enough for the Bucks to make the trip.

I think the game in Cleveland could be workable with Ohio State. Neither PB or Cleveland can hold as many as Ohio Stadium, but the concessions cut would make it worth it. As far as Ohio State playing Akron at home, you know they wouldn't do that. Living in Columbus, you know how much money comes in from home games and the only way Ohio State is going to leave the 'shoe for an OOC game is if it would be a national game on a big stage. Plane trip, site seeing tour, and the whole nine yards. They aren't going to ride 21/2 hours on the bus to play an in state team.

I'm not saying it is fair, it isn't, but when you look at it from Ohio State's perspective they have nothing to gain by agreeing to do it.

The MAC was very close to making a big leap in national respect a couple of years ago when they pulled off all the upsets. If they could have followed that up with a couple more years like that, people would have started to quit calling them upsets.

I have a friend who played for Miami (Ohio) and have seen several games in BG, OU, and Toledo. I have a lot of respect for the MAC and they are a lot better conference then people give them credit for being. The problem with teams from the smaller conferences isn't their front line players. Their big problem is depth. Using teams from Ohio as an example, there are starters all over the MAC who could play for Ohio State. The problem is they aren't as deep. They can't maintain a high level with the rotation. That is why you see when Miami or any MAC team start out against Ohio State they hang in the first half. In the second half, though, they start getting tired and Ohio State is still fresh. Then they usually start pulling away. It isn't 22 against 22, it is 44 against 22 and that makes it tough.

Still one of these days one of the MAC teams will beat them. They have came awfully close several times in the last 10 to 15 years. The MAC does it the right way. They court games that most teams would dare play. I respect them for that and hope that they get their due sometime in the future.

[colorado_loves_football]

I enjoy watching the MAC when opportunity permits.
Wasn't Bowling Green something of a 'dynasty' back in the 1980s?
I seem to recall a year in which both Fresno St, and Bowling Green were undefeated (and unranked) and were paired together in the California Raisin Bowl. Fresno St won that game, handily , but the following year, unless I'm mistaken, Bowling Green got 'revenge'.
This year, was the first in some time that I can recall both those teams being 'good' again. I might have enjoyed a 'reunion' of their rivalry.
They maybe could have played in the Poinsettia Bowl, or even better, the Diamond Walnut Bowl.
That's been a pretty good game, competitively-speaking. Boston College and Colorado State played in that game, two years ago.
Anyway, all I'm getting at, is there have been a few 'opportunities' like that that have been overlooked. The Liberty Bowl turned out to be a success, as I'm sure so did most of the other games, but someone needs to try to tie in 'tradition' together with competitive pairings of teams.
Did you know that Michigan and TCU have never played? I didn't know that until I looked it up, they also haven't ever played Illinios. The Alamo Bowl (assuming Nebraska hadnt' qualified) would have been an opportunity to pair two teams together, similar to how Michigan had played Texas in the Rose Bowl, first time ever (to a record crowd).
I'm not saying a Michigan vs. Nebraska isn't a competitive pairing of teams, but they played before. Alamo officials made it sound like they hadn't in over 50 years, they were wrong. I believe they met in a Fiesta Bowl, but at that time, bowls weren't seen as part of a team's 'schedule'.
It's only been recently that has changed, believe it or not.

[Spence]

The Alamo billed it as two of the top 5 teams all time, which is true. It just was getting them when both teams were down. Still it was a good match up, between the #1 team and the #4 team all time.

[colorado_loves_football]

The Alamo billed it as two of the top 5 teams all time, which is true. It just was getting them when both teams were down. Still it was a good match up, between the #1 team and the #4 team all time.

I have not problem in terms of putting those teams together, but Nebraska hasn't been as good as they have been in recent years (neither, for that matter has Michigan). I think it was an opportunity blown, myself, of pairing two teams that never faced each other before.
Suer, it worked out, but only because Nebraska played better than Michigan, I'd be embarrased to lose to the Cornhuskers. They weren't a better team, in terms of talent, than Michigan.

[Spence]

Nebraska played better football. Nebraska and Michigan both have very young teams. Also any time you match up two historical powerhouse teams, I going to watch. I watch Notre Dame - Michigan every year and I don't like either team. Still they are the #1 and #2 team all time and the fact that they play almost every year doesn't diminish that fact. Even if both teams are down it is usually a good game.

Ohio State - Michigan is like that. Michigan could be #1 in the country and Ohio State could be 7-4 and the game will still be close. The same works in reverse. When you are playing for the pride of 75 years worth of players, in the game that means as much as any championship game could ever mean to these two schools, you get great football.

You could watch both teams play all year, but during this game you see the hardest hitting game either team will play all year. If you ever get the chance to see this game in person, fan or just neutral observer, you should do it. The atmosphere is amazing, the fans are living and dying with each play. If the Ohio State football coach loses this game, he can't walk the street of Columbus until he redeems himself.

Anytime you can get historical powers together for a game it is special. Even if it is a bowl reserved for teams that finished forth in their conferences.

USC and Ohio State will renew a rivary with a home and away series in a couple of years. Virginia Tech and Ohio State hopefully will start a new rivalry in a few years, but the most anticipated game in Columbus right now is the Miami - Ohio State pairing that will be the first rematch since the 2002 championship game. I love to see game like this and I am glad teams are starting to do get these kinds of match ups early in the year. It makes sept. in CFB as much fun as November.

[Jason G]

I totally get what you're saying with the last two paragraphs above, and from a "major" conference perspective it makes sense. My fear, though, is that all of the top teams nationally will start to schedule multiple non-conference games with the other teams that are by popular opinion, believed to be the best.

If this happened though it would cripple the ability for non-BCS schools to schedule bigger name opponents even more than they already are. The rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer.

I don't mind the big name schools scheduling each other for games but I cringe when I see a school that schedules every OOC game against a traditional power because I don't want that trend to catch on.

[colorado_loves_football]

Nebraska played better football. Nebraska and Michigan both have very young teams. Also any time you match up two historical powerhouse teams, I going to watch. I watch Notre Dame - Michigan every year and I don't like either team. Still they are the #1 and #2 team all time and the fact that they play almost every year doesn't diminish that fact. Even if both teams are down it is usually a good game.

Ohio State - Michigan is like that. Michigan could be #1 in the country and Ohio State could be 7-4 and the game will still be close. The same works in reverse. When you are playing for the pride of 75 years worth of players, in the game that means as much as any championship game could ever mean to these two schools, you get great football.

You could watch both teams play all year, but during this game you see the hardest hitting game either team will play all year. If you ever get the chance to see this game in person, fan or just neutral observer, you should do it. The atmosphere is amazing, the fans are living and dying with each play. If the Ohio State football coach loses this game, he can't walk the street of Columbus until he redeems himself.

Anytime you can get historical powers together for a game it is special. Even if it is a bowl reserved for teams that finished forth in their conferences.

USC and Ohio State will renew a rivary with a home and away series in a couple of years. Virginia Tech and Ohio State hopefully will start a new rivalry in a few years, but the most anticipated game in Columbus right now is the Miami - Ohio State pairing that will be the first rematch since the 2002 championship game. I love to see game like this and I am glad teams are starting to do get these kinds of match ups early in the year. It makes sept. in CFB as much fun as November.

I"m not necessarily implying that it wasn't a good pairing, I'm just asking why TCU wasn't selected as one of the participants. I understand that those bowls already have pre-existing agreements with teams from 'major' conferences, but it doesn't address how a team like TCU might do if they were selected.
Some might argue TCU was 'fairly' paired in the Houston Bowl. But, that doesnt' really excuse their not having had an opportunity to play against a comparable opponent, talent-wise. Maybe TCU and Oregon weren't as good as the rest of the BCS 'field' but not ever letting them play doesn't address the 'larger' issue of access, and competitive play. The Oregon vs. Oklahoma game likely 'settled' the debate about which team was better, TCU or Oregon, but I still would have preferred they play.
That's one reason I"m not happy with a 'ranking' even if it does give TCU a generally 'fair' placing at #9. I would much rather have seen them play a quality football program. Iowa St, was decent, but I have a hard time believing they were the 'best' team available. Not allowing TCU to play a 'quality' football team, I think shows how biased and prejudicial the BCS is, in general.
It still remains something of a question how good TCU was, in general.
They did beat Oklahoma, first game of the year, and won the Mountain West Conference, outright. But I don't think beating Iowa St, necessarily gives a 'fair' assessment of where they stood, compared to everyone else.

[Spence]

That's one reason I"m not happy with a 'ranking' even if it does give TCU a generally 'fair' placing at #9. I would much rather have seen them play a quality football program. Iowa St, was decent, but I have a hard time believing they were the 'best' team available. Not allowing TCU to play a 'quality' football team, I think shows how biased and prejudicial the BCS is, in general.
It still remains something of a question how good TCU was, in general.
They did beat Oklahoma, first game of the year, and won the Mountain West Conference, outright. But I don't think beating Iowa St, necessarily gives a 'fair' assessment of where they stood, compared to everyone else.

The BCS has nothing to do with who gets selected to any bowl game past the BCS bowls. None of the rest of the bowls have anything to do with the BCS. The Rose, Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar bowls are the only bowls affiliated with the BCS.