Mid-Majors vs. Majors

[mountainman]

There is no price to be paid by anyone with the current setup. That's one reason it's done the way it currently is. Both teams come out winners.

Why would one advocate something that would hurt either team?

[Eric]

In 2004, look at this:

Rutgers beat Michigan State.
Rutgers lost to New Hampshire.
Michigan State beat Minnesota.
Minnesota beat Alabama in the Music City Bowl.
Alabama beat Southern Miss.
Southern Miss ALMOST beat Cal.

That must mean that in 2004, New Hampshire could be competitive with California. Hmm, that makes a lot of sense. SMU played respectably in a sub-par C-USA, they're not even bowl worthy last year. Oregon lost to USC, not a mediocre C-USA team. Auburn lost to Georgia Tech and LSU. Not a mediocre C-USA team. If TCU was deserving of the BCS, they had to have clobbered everyone on their schedule. They beat a lot of teams comfortably, lost to SMU, and BYU lost by a point in overtime. It's not what you would call a BCS resume. I think you are missing the point that the BCS is reserved for the 6 of the best teams in college football. I'd have to say that TCU was around #15 in the country. Sure, you're allowed one slip-up, but as a mid-major that's a death sentence if you're aiming for the BCS.

[ktffan]

In general non-BCS schools play schedules that are PERCEIVED as being weaker than the ones played by most BCS schools.

'Perceived'??????????????????

[ktffan]

1. Schedules are made so many years in advance that it is impossible to know how good or bad the teams may be by the time the game is played.

Teams know which school are BCS schools. Even if those schools end up bad, at least play the teams that the best are playing. If you schedule middle Tennessee State people know you aren't trying.

[ktffan]

Hey Jason G., you know you have to ask the questions both ways.

Your point #2 asks about who should pay the price. Do you believe the BCS schools should be the ones to pay the price? Surely, you wouldn't ask that another team give up millions (that's right, millions) in revenues in order for someone else to reap the rewards at their expense.

Would you expect a mid-major Division 1 program to do the same by having a home and home series with a NAIA, Division III, or Division II program playing in a 5000-20,000 or so seat stadium?

Mountainman, who should pay the price? I guess the answer is that we all should if we really want to see a 'concensus' national champion.

The argument about having an NAIA team play actually has basis in fact, I live in Alamosa, Colorado where the teams regularly play in a 5000 seat stadium. And Adams State does make deals with I-AA football programs, but they are all away games, but that's partly because those teams dont' want to travel here. Doesn't mean Adams State can't play competitive football. They were tied, 7-7, against U. N. Arizona before losing big, in 2003. Adams State's enrollment is somewhere in the 2500 range. Those decisions are financial.

Adams State is not NAIA.

[ktffan]

A competitive BCS would allow a team like TCU an opportunity to showcase their talent against a team of comparable skill and ability. They showed they were a competitive football team through head-to-head pairings in their confernece, as well as competitive pairings outside their confernece. They lost ONE game to a team they've played competitively for nearly 100 years. Should that necessarily exclude them from the BCS? I dont think so, myself, especially when that team was competitive against other teams besides TCU. Yes, SMU was 5-6.
They were also 4-4 in C-USA. Tulsa, struggled to beat SMU. SMU beat Houston. Houston beat Tulsa. Houston also was 4-4 C-USA.

TCU only beat one ranked team and their opponents went 64-74 against mostly mid-majors. With that resume, TCU has no business making the BCS even if undefeated, far less with one loss.

[mountainman]

Hey, ktffan. Nice post on clearing up that "basis in fact" claim.

[Eric]

Exactly, nice stats ktffan!

The schedule that TCU played is not deserving of a BCS bid. I think it would've been nice to see TCU in a bigger bowl, but the Houston Bowl was much closer to home.

[colorado_loves_football]

I know Adams State isn't NAIA now, but they were for most of the years they were in football, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make, anyway. They are a small college, much smaller than even TCU, yet they are competitive against supposedly 'better' competition. But I find it ironic someone had to hire a 'mercenary' to defend themselves. W/e.

Now, the TCU argument is something I'm interested in. The argument that somehow they weren't sufficiently 'qualified' has absolutely no basis in fact, whatsoever. I believe they were as qualified, if not more so, as W. Virginia. What are my reasons? Well, both teams were undefeated in their respective conferences, and W. Virginia might not have been selected had they not been a conference champion.

Eric, I believe it was, implied that the C-USA was a 'weak' conference. I do'nt buy into that at all. SMU beat some good teams, including UTEP, a team I had forgotten to mention. I know SMU was 5-6, but so was Baylor and so was Michigan St (who nearly beat Michigan).

I tried to follow your reasoning applied to 2004, and you lost me. That wasn't triangulation, that was more like tridecation, and I never take anything to that degree, Eric, you should be ashamed. I do, however, make direct comparisons, where appropriate. For example, when two teams schedule the same team, but not each other, it's one way to get an idea where they stand. So, my argument that SMU was competitive is based on the fact SMU beat bowl-eligible teams. They also lost to Tulsa, head-to-head. But not by a large margin.

And whether or not you agree that the C-USA was a 'competitive' conference, really isn't important, they were. By nearly anyone's standard, so yes, that SMU was 4-4 is relevant. That they beat TCU is relevant, also, but TCU isn't a C-USA team, anymore. SMU kept UTEP out of the C-USA championship game, that's relevant, too. Tulsa beat Fresno St, in the Liberty Bowl, for all intents-and-purposes the 'non-BCS' title game. TCU beat Iowa St, in the Houston Bowl. I think it's fair to say they were pretty competitive. And the fact TCU was ranked in the top-ten nationally is relevant. Pretty much conclusive evidence they were a competitive team.

[ktffan]

Adams State isn't NAIA now, they were reclassified in 1990 I believe it was, to Division II. Not that that had anything at all to do with the point I was trying to make. Adams State is a small college, and they have played against significantly 'better' competitiion and done pretty well, but why should it surprise me you missed my point?

It's difficult to figure out what your point is when what you say is not true. You clearly infered Adams State is an NAIA team, which they aren't. You say they regularly schedule I-AA teams, when they've schedule 4 in the last 10 years, 6 in the last 20. You say Adams State played Northern Arizona in 2003 and yet they didn't. You say Adams State has done "pretty well" against "significantly better" teams and yet they've lost their last 4 games against I-AA teams by a combined 157-33. I'd hate to see how a team that doesn't do "pretty well" would fair.

Now, as far as TCU is concerned make whatever argument you want about them not being sufficiently good enough it doesn't matter. But, I find it insulting you would imply even at 11-0 they aren't 'qualified'.

Be insulted all you like. In order to earn your way in, you need to prove your worth. Playing just one BCS team is not showing that and having two mid-majors take you to over time definately is not showing that. TCU could not have come close to competing with the other BCS teams last year.

[colorado_loves_football]

Adams State isn't NAIA now, they were reclassified in 1990 I believe it was, to Division II. Not that that had anything at all to do with the point I was trying to make. Adams State is a small college, and they have played against significantly 'better' competitiion and done pretty well, but why should it surprise me you missed my point?

It's difficult to figure out what your point is when what you say is not true. You clearly infered Adams State is an NAIA team, which they aren't. You say they regularly schedule I-AA teams, when they've schedule 4 in the last 10 years, 6 in the last 20. You say Adams State played Northern Arizona in 2003 and yet they didn't. You say Adams State has done "pretty well" against "significantly better" teams and yet they've lost their last 4 games against I-AA teams by a combined 157-33. I'd hate to see how a team that doesn't do "pretty well" would fair.

Now, as far as TCU is concerned make whatever argument you want about them not being sufficiently good enough it doesn't matter. But, I find it insulting you would imply even at 11-0 they aren't 'qualified'.

Be insulted all you like. In order to earn your way in, you need to prove your worth. Playing just one BCS team is not showing that and having two mid-majors take you to over time definately is not showing that. TCU could not have come close to competing with the other BCS teams last year.

Prior to 1990 Adams State College was an NAIA school, that's when the Rocky Mountain Athletic Confernece decided to join Division II. I wasn't lying about that particular matter, and Adams State was a competitive NAIA school, that was my point all along.
I was incorrect in saying Adams State played University of N. Arizona in 2003, that was a piece of incorrect information, but they did schedule them in 2005. I apologize for that, but I don't apologize for making the comparison. N. Arizona for all intents and purposes is a I-AA school.
Adams State scheduled them, played them to a 'stand-off' for a half, then they were beaten, soundly, 2nd half. My point was that it's possible for a small 'NAIA' school (what Adams State traditionally has been) to play competitive football. And they do.

Now as far as TCU is concerned they did play a competitive schedule, so I dont' really care if you don't agree, that's irrelevant. You implied (wrongly, I might add) that the 'brunt' of their schedule was against 'weak' competition. Not only is that a very biased argument, it is incorrect. I didn't even mention Oklahoma, partly because I feel that isn't nearly as important as the fact they were 8-0 overall MWC. THAT'S what matters. I suggested Tulsa was an example of a team that lost their OOC games yet was competitive, and they were. TCU never played Tulsa, so SMU needs to be used as a reference point. SMU lost to Tulsa, yet beat Houston and UTEP, two teams that beat Tulsa. It's very possible, likely even, TCU wins C-USA, or in ohter words, was the BEST 'non-BCS' team. You haven't read my arguments or you would understand that already. I never said TCU was necessarily 'better' than any BCS team, I simply stated they were 'as good'. And I think that's a fair assessment of them as a team. You haven't given conclusive evidence, simply numbers that can be interpreted different ways.
Sure, there were teams in the MWC that 'sucked'. I'll admit that. But not every team did, including BYU. TCU beating them, in Provo, was a major accomplishment. That's not easy to do, for anybody. BYU is a strong football program, traditionally. They likely weren't as good as in season's past. Regardless, TCU won. Yes it was by one point, and in OT. A come-from-behind win over a team that doesn't lose much, at home. I thought it was one of the more impressive wins, myself.

[ktffan]

Adans State WAS an NAIA team! Look it up, my point was they are a lot smaller than the average Division II team. But that was lost on you. I didn't say they regularly scheduled I-AA teams I said they played N. Arizona (and they did). If it wasn't 2003, then it was later. I think I stated they were competitve through halftime, and they were, then they were beaten pretty badly 2nd half. Anyone familiar with my postings knows I'm not always 100% but the 'meat' of my message is usually right on. Why don't you look it up? I'm not lying.

Whoa, whoa, whoa? "A lot smaller than an average divsion II school", because they were NAIA once????? How does that figure? There's not a whole lost of difference on the playing field between NAIA schools and division II schools.

Adams State played Northern Arizona last year and were 7-6 at half time, but they let Northern Arizona score on every 3rd quarter possesion. That's not really being in the game, and I don't know that it can be described as "being competitive". They've been blow out their last 4 (+)games against I-AA teams. That's not being competative.

As for their motive for scheduling I-AA schools, I have no idea why you think this example remotely compares to teams scheduling at the I-A level.

[colorado_loves_football]

Adans State WAS an NAIA team! Look it up, my point was they are a lot smaller than the average Division II team. But that was lost on you. I didn't say they regularly scheduled I-AA teams I said they played N. Arizona (and they did). If it wasn't 2003, then it was later. I think I stated they were competitve through halftime, and they were, then they were beaten pretty badly 2nd half. Anyone familiar with my postings knows I'm not always 100% but the 'meat' of my message is usually right on. Why don't you look it up? I'm not lying.

Whoa, whoa, whoa? "A lot smaller than an average divsion II school", because they were NAIA once????? How does that figure? There's not a whole lost of difference on the playing field between NAIA schools and division II schools.

Adams State played Northern Arizona last year and were 7-6 at half time, but they let Northern Arizona score on every 3rd quarter possesion. That's not really being in the game, and I don't know that it can be described as "being competitive". They've been blow out their last 4 (+)games against I-AA teams. That's not being competative.

As for their motive for scheduling I-AA schools, I have no idea why you think this example remotely compares to teams scheduling at the I-A level.

Was an NAIA school once? For most of their history they were an NAIA school, and they have since considered re-joining that designation. I wasn't posting invalid information. NO, they aren't NAIA now, they're NCAA Division II, as is the rest of their conference. But Adams State is one of the smaller schools in their confernece.
So, how does that apply to the argument? Well, actually my thinking was that Adams State, small as they are, probably would dominate a conference of comparably-sized schools. But that's something of a conjecture I have no idea how well they would do.
Why do I mention it? I live here, for one thing. It's something I know about first-hand, so yes it's relevant. I don't know how much money is received through those kind of agreements, either. But Adams State held their own, 1st half, probably to the dismay of the school they were playing. You don't have to remind me about how the 2nd half went. I already know. One-sided I think would be a fair description.
I don't know Adams State's history all that well, that should be obvious to you. I never played for Adams State, and quite frankly never wanted to, either. They are competitive for a school with an enrollment somewhere around the 2500 range. They probably shouldn't ever play a school at the I-AA level, so it doesn't suprise me they lose.
But, in 1988, they wrestled University of Notre Dame, in a dual, and won.
That's something you might want to put in your 'bag of tricks'.

[ktffan]

Was an NAIA school once? For most of their history they were an NAIA school, and they have since considered re-joining that designation. I wasn't posting invalid information. NO, they aren't NAIA now, they're NCAA Division II, as is the rest of their conference. But Adams State is one of the smaller schools in their confernece.
So, how does that apply to the argument? Well, actually my thinking was that Adams State, small as they are, probably would dominate a conference of comparably-sized schools. But that's something of a conjecture I have no idea how well they would do.
Why do I mention it? I live here, for one thing. It's something I know about first-hand, so yes it's relevant. I don't know how much money is received through those kind of agreements, either. But Adams State held their own, 1st half, probably to the dismay of the school they were playing. You don't have to remind me about how the 2nd half went. I already know. One-sided I think would be a fair description.
I don't know Adams State's history all that well, that should be obvious to you. I never played for Adams State, and quite frankly never wanted to, either. They are competitive for a school with an enrollment somewhere around the 2500 range. They probably shouldn't ever play a school at the I-AA level, so it doesn't suprise me they lose.
But, in 1988, they wrestled University of Notre Dame, in a dual, and won.
That's something you might want to put in your 'bag of tricks'.

You seem to be under the that NAIA school are significantly smaller than division II schools. I'm not sure why you have this impression. Arkansas State, Ball State, Louisiana Tech, Middle Tennessee State and Troy were all once NAIA teams and now are I-A.

As to scheduling, for division II, financial need not be the motivation. When qualifying for playoffs, division II teams get bonuses for playing I-AA and I-A teams, although despite being "competative", I doubt Adams State either figures on beating a I-AA team or going to the playoffs.

[colorado_loves_football]

You seem to be under the that NAIA school are significantly smaller than division II schools. I'm not sure why you have this impression. Arkansas State, Ball State, Louisiana Tech, Middle Tennessee State and Troy were all once NAIA teams and now are I-A.

As to scheduling, for division II, financial need not be the motivation. When qualifying for playoffs, division II teams get bonuses for playing I-AA and I-A teams, although despite being "competative", I doubt Adams State either figures on beating a I-AA team or going to the playoffs.

I'm not sure why you are so determined to insult me with respect to Adams State College, but if you want, by all means, go ahead.
They are a competitive football program, by-and-large. Some years more competitive than others, but in general they aren't too bad.
They played in 1988 national championship game, NAIA (see, I wasn't lying). They lost, to Carson-Newmann Tennessee, a pretty decent team, as memory serves, and they beat Pittsburgh St, (KS) to get there, a team that incidentally was coached by Dennis Francione. So, that says something about how competitive they were. So, if YOUR argument is that NAIA is competitive, then I guess I am inclined to agree with you.
Adams State certainly would want to go to the playoffs, that's about as dumb a statement as I've read, in a long time.
They played for the conference championship 2004, I believe it was, and lost to Colorado Mines, who lost to the eventual national runner-up Pittsburgh St (KS). Colorado Mines was a competitive football team, by anyone's standard, that year, but Pittsburgh St was better.
So, what is my point? That a team in a remote location can play competitive football, and they do. If you want, go ahead and attack me on that basis, but it likely won't go far. Adams State isn't an NAIA school now, you are correct about that particular point. They were NAIA until the conference they play in elected to join NCAA II. That happened, I believe in 1990. As far as how it's impacted them, it would appear to me they are playing against 'better' competition in general.
But there are good NAIA schools. Adams State was a competitive school on the NAIA level, and they are on the NCAA level, also, it was a fairly smooth transition for them. My point in mentioning N. Arizona, is that's a school that likely thought they were significantly better than ASC. WEll, they won, but as you already know, the 1st half was a 'draw'. 2nd half ASC lost whatever momentum they had. ASC, incidentally wasn't as good 2005 as they were in 2004.