Mid-Majors vs. Majors

[ktffan]

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.

Insult? What are you talking about?

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).

I know they were in the NAIA. What makes you think I didn't know that?

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.

Apparently you left something out of your thought process. I know how I know that the NAIA is decent, but you've given me nothing to indicate why you would figure that.

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.

Try reading a little more carefully. I never said they wouldn't want to go, I said they probably don't figure on making it. They've never been to the division II playoffs and given that they've been 24-31 over the last 5 years and 19-21 in conference, I don't think they are holding their breath until they make it.

If you want, go ahead and attack me on that basis,

Attack you??? What are you talking about?

WEll, they won, but as you already know, the 1st half was a 'draw'.

When you score fewer points than the other team, it's not a "draw".

[colorado_loves_football]

I've already exceeded my limit for postings for the day, but I will respond to your very antagonistic post, anyway.
Adams State is Division II, and you are correct they have yet to play in the playoffs, typically the only team that goes, is the conference champion, and they lost to Colorado Mines, 2004. Colorado Mines lost to Pittsburgh St, 70-35 I believe the final score was.
Adams State was VERY close to being in the playoffs, that year. Colorado Mines went, with a 'perfect' 12-0 record. Adams State was 7-4, 2004.
Why should I care about NAIA? I don't know why you keep mentioning it, personally but yes Adams State was an NAIA team the year they played in the national championship, so if your argument is the NAIA is competitive then I agree with you (2nd time).
Finally, with respect to the game between Adams State and N. Arizona, Adams State outplayed them, 1st half, but it didn't show up on the scoreboard. That was my point. The 2nd half was a different story, and the score reflected that. N. Arizona is a I-AA football team. My point was that Adams State (a Division II school) could play competitive football against a I-AA team, and that was why I used that as a reference point. By the way Adams State was 6-5 2005.
Don't hold your breath. I don't know how good Adams State will be, either. They aren't my team. I simply live where they play. I saw them play against Colorado Mines. They were competitive. End of story.

[Eric]

Nobody is saying that TCU isn't a good football team. You are under the impression we share the same view as Billy Packer when it comes to smaller schools. I think TCU was head and shoulders above everyone else when it came to the mid-major ranks, I believe they were a top 15-caliber football team. You tend to ignore this, and this is rather important that we respect your Horned Frogs.

They also surrendered 50 points to BYU. I know they have a powerful offense, but they scored 50 points against TCU, more than scored against Eastern Illinois, San Diego State, and Colorado State, and others, while scoring 3 against Boston College. They scored 4 touchdowns against a mediocre Pac-10 defense in Cal.

TCU might've been good enough to play in the BCS, and we'll never figure that one out. The thing is, they didn't have the resume. And to say they should've been ahead in line for the BCS, ahead of Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oregon, Miami, and Auburn, that's ludacris.

[ktffan]

I've already exceeded my limit for postings for the day, but I will respond to your very antagonistic post, anyway.

Antagonistic???? Man, you get worked up easy. I have not been antagonistic, insulting nor have I attacked you. I get the feeling that you seem to think that all you have to do to makes something real is to claim it.

Adams State is Division II, and you are correct they have yet to play in the playoffs, typically the only team that goes, is the conference champion, and they lost to Colorado Mines, 2004. Colorado Mines lost to Pittsburgh St, 70-35 I believe the final score was.
Adams State was VERY close to being in the playoffs, that year.

You mean only the conference champion goes in the Rocky Mountain conference. That's because the conference is a rather poor division II conference. The other conferences get at-large selections.

Adams State was not VERY close to being in the playoffs, they got blow off the field by a better team.

Why should I care about NAIA? I don't know why you keep mentioning it, personally but yes Adams State was an NAIA team the year they played in the national championship, so if your argument is the NAIA is competitive then I agree with you (2nd time).

So you argument to claim that the NAIA is competative is solely base on the fact that Adams State was an NAIA member. That's what I thought you said the first time, but come on. So if Adams State had spent some time in division III, we'd know that division III was also competitive? Explain to me what's so special about Adams State that if they play in a division that makes that divsion competative. I really need to understand this.

Finally, with respect to the game between Adams State and N. Arizona, Adams State outplayed them, 1st half, but it didn't show up on the scoreboard.

Outplayed them???? Adams State got outgained 195-103 in the first half. How did they out play them? If Northern Arizona hadn't turned the ball over 3 times and failed to convert a 4th and 1 the first half would have been the same as the second.

[ktffan]

Ok, having read my post again, that could have been perceived as antagonistic. It wasn't meant to be such. I'm just asking questions trying to get your thought process down here. You've given me no reason to believe that the NAIA is competitive (although I believe it myself), other than Adams State was in the NAIA. I'm trying to understand you here. What is it about Adams State being in the NAIA that made them competitive?

[mountainman]

And while you're at it tell us more about how Adams State won a dual wrestling match back in 1988 against the University of Notre Dame.

Is that the University of Notre Dame located in South Bend, Indiana or is that another Notre Dame?

[Jason G]

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back on this topic.

When I asked earlier if the non-BCS schools pay the price I should have phrased the question better. I should have asked if the non-BCS school should ALWAYS pay the price. It isn't fair for anyone to always be on the losing end of this situation. I would just like to see it be more equal and not so one-sided. The point about the money and when non-BCS schools are scheduling teams from lesser divisions is well taken and I certainly see your point. However, I would like to state for the record that I don't think 1-A schools should ever schedule opponents other than 1-A schools unless there are extenuating circumstances. 119 teams is enough to find four non-conference games!

In my opinion the best answer is systematic scheduling of non-conference opponents. I know Spence shares this view. Does anyone else?

The reason I used PERCIEVED in an earlier post was simply to prove my point. If BCS schools won't schedule non-BCS schools how do they know how good the non-BCS schools are? What are the points of reference for saying how good someone is if they don't get the chance to show it? BCS schools are very, very likely to be better in general but if all non-BCS schools got legitimate shots at BCS schools each and every year (and incoming recruits know this will be the case) you would certainly see the level of competion equal out drastically over a relatively short period of time.

ktffan, As far as knowing who you schedule and what caliber they are likely to be, my point is that non-BCS programs are turned down by BCS schools for games all the time. Who would you have a non-BCS school play when the BCS schools refuse to play them? Middle Tennessee State is a 1-A team and certainly a much better opponent than a so-so 1-AA team.

[Spence]

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back on this topic.

When I asked earlier if the non-BCS schools pay the price I should have phrased the question better. I should have asked if the non-BCS school should ALWAYS pay the price. It isn't fair for anyone to always be on the losing end of this situation. I would just like to see it be more equal and not so one-sided. The point about the money and when non-BCS schools are scheduling teams from lesser divisions is well taken and I certainly see your point. However, I would like to state for the record that I don't think 1-A schools should ever schedule opponents other than 1-A schools unless there are extenuating circumstances. 119 teams is enough to find four non-conference games!

In my opinion the best answer is systematic scheduling of non-conference opponents. I know Spence shares this view. Does anyone else?

The reason I used PERCIEVED in an earlier post was simply to prove my point. If BCS schools won't schedule non-BCS schools how do they know how good the non-BCS schools are? What are the points of reference for saying how good someone is if they don't get the chance to show it? BCS schools are very, very likely to be better in general but if all non-BCS schools got legitimate shots at BCS schools each and every year (and incoming recruits know this will be the case) you would certainly see the level of competion equal out drastically over a relatively short period of time.

I pretty much agree with everything you are saying. You can't really criticize a team that tries to upgrade their schedule and can't. Without implimenting some kind of systematic scheduling there is zero chance of someone like Ohio State playing someone like Akron at their house because of the money. If CFB wanted more parity then systematic scheduling is the only way to go. It would create a play-off type atmosphere for the whole CFB season and would mean no one would likely be over rated come bowl time.

[mountainman]

Hey, Jason G. Maybe I'm not clear on something and you can help me. What do you mean by the term 'price' and 'losing end of this situation'?

I agree about the scheduling 1-AA issue and I too realize there are sometimes extenuating circumstances. The raid of the Big East Conference by the ACC caused some of those circumstances not only for the Big East, but also Conference USA. I know West Virginia got caught up in it and ended up scheduling Wofford (1-AA) last season due to the University of Central Florida (UCF), because of similar circumstances, backing out of their schedule game with the Mountaineers. Like I've said before, I have no problem with what the ACC did, but the way they did it surely created problems for at least 2 other conferences and that part of it most certainly could have been better managed and the problems it created could have been avoided.

Scheduling issue remain for the Mountaineers as a result of the three teams that jumped ship to the ACC. The University of Buffalo, a quick fix replacement for one of the holes left by the exodus has indicated they want out of their contract to play the Mountaineers this season due to the circumstance of Auburn, who needed a twelfth game, offering them enough money to pay the West Virginia buyout amount in the contract and still make money.

This has the possibility of costing the Mountaineers dearly if other pieces of the puzzled should happen to fall into place. We'll see how things work out.

So yes, because of the potential for things such as these to happen again to any team or any group of teams, I would think that some sort of scheduling rule requirements and changes are in order at the NCAA level. I'm not sure what they are at this point, but I am hopeful that if they are made they will be in the best interest of the game.

[colorado_loves_football]

Nobody is saying that TCU isn't a good football team. You are under the impression we share the same view as Billy Packer when it comes to smaller schools. I think TCU was head and shoulders above everyone else when it came to the mid-major ranks, I believe they were a top 15-caliber football team. You tend to ignore this, and this is rather important that we respect your Horned Frogs.

They also surrendered 50 points to BYU. I know they have a powerful offense, but they scored 50 points against TCU, more than scored against Eastern Illinois, San Diego State, and Colorado State, and others, while scoring 3 against Boston College. They scored 4 touchdowns against a mediocre Pac-10 defense in Cal.

TCU might've been good enough to play in the BCS, and we'll never figure that one out. The thing is, they didn't have the resume. And to say they should've been ahead in line for the BCS, ahead of Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oregon, Miami, and Auburn, that's ludacris.

At least someone is putting their attention on a game other than SMU! Thanks for doing that.

As far as Brigham Young is concerned, they are a very competitive football team, traditionally. They weren't very competitive 2003, I think it was, but typically they are very competitive, so beating them, in Provo, UT is significant, but if you are asking me what that says about TCU's defense, I guess I can't give you an honest answer (It's a loaded question, but suffice to say TCU obviously needed better D).

That being said, I think the fact TCU won, even despite giving up 50 points says a lot about how competitive they were. BYU likely wasn't very good, defensively, either. It was an offensive battle, no offense!
But that game went into OT and TCU came out on top. That's what matters, in my view. You can maybe bring California into the argument, but I think by the time that game rolled around we are talking about two different teams. TCU beat BYU fairly early in the season. By the time the year was up, it's possible BYU was a better team, but so was TCU, in my opinoin.

Now, if the question is whether or not TCU would have been a 'deserving' representative to the BCS, I think you need look no further than W. Virginia. They were a team many (including myself) thought wasn't 'deserving' of a BCS invitation. Not because I don't like W. Virginia, I simply thought they weren't as good as their record. But following their Sugar Bowl win, few raised that argument. I simply want all teams treated with the same kind of respect, regardless of where they play. It's possible this redistribution of teams, in the Big East could eventually allow for greater 'participation' within the BCS. I personally think it would give the BCS an element it hasn't had previously, or better stated, the possiblity of a 'championship' pairing a 'non-BCS' representative, when appropriate. That would require competitive play.

[colorado_loves_football]

Ok, having read my post again, that could have been perceived as antagonistic. It wasn't meant to be such. I'm just asking questions trying to get your thought process down here. You've given me no reason to believe that the NAIA is competitive (although I believe it myself), other than Adams State was in the NAIA. I'm trying to understand you here. What is it about Adams State being in the NAIA that made them competitive?

I grew up in Alamosa Colorado. I've lived here 99% of my life, occasionally having lived in Boulder, Colorado (University of Colorado) and Ft. Collins, Colorado (CSU).
I've occasionally lived in Virginia and also temporarily in Scottsdale, Arizona. My experience, primarily is limited to a small-town environment, so I know a little about how Adams State is viewed, nationally, a small college which has made significant marks, in certain areas, competitively-speaking. Their track & field teams, and Cross Country teams are known nationally for being at or near the 'top', of all divisions! That's not something I'm saying to impress you, it's a fact.
Their football teams, by-and-large haven't been that great, traditionally.
But they have occasionally surprised people, 1989 I think it was they were very good. Since then it's been mostly touch-and-go.
Their wrestling teams also have been competitive, generally. The year they wrestled Notre Dame, I don't really know how good Adams State was, but they obvously were pretty good! The dual was set-up by the wrestling coach, who apparently had ties with the University of Notre Dame, somehow. Don't ask me for particulars, I dont' have them available to you. However his name is Rodger Jehlicka, and he was recently inducted into Adams State College's Hall of Fame. You can maybe read more about him, if you are interested.
My impression generally is that Adams State is a place kids go, who might not otherwise have an opportunity. Its' not necessarily #1 on anyone's list, but that might be changing somewhat. Some kids are coming here at least in part because of the tradition of excellence.
I could maybe give a list of names, but suffice to say that there has been a fairly long (and fairly accomplished) list of athletes who have impacted the institution. Some have since gone on to do outstanding things in their various occupations.
Unfortunately the college itself has fallen upon hard times, economically.
It's not a healthy place monetarily, so maybe that ties into what Mountainman was saying earlier with respect to scheduling. Adams State likely scheduled U. N. Arizona for money. But I don't have any knowledge as to the degree they were compensated.
The NAIA argument was based on what I thought I understood about how teams are organized. You obviously understand that better than I do. Adams State did very well under the auspices of the NAIA, and that has mostly continued as a NCAA member, but likely not to the degree, so you are also correct their success, while significant has been pretty much limited to track & field, and cross country (where they dominate).
They field competitive softball teams, (women's) but their bread & butter would appear to be their track & field & cross country. Football has only been good within the past 3-4 years. And it's still a ? if they will continue to do well, but they were competitive in 2004. Answer your question?

[Spence]

San Jose State scheduled 9 or 10 road games a few years ago. They did it for the cash. There was an article about it when they came in to play Ohio State. It is sad that they had to do that. I believe that it isn't worth putting the athletes through that just to save the athletics programs. They could go to 1-AA and operate fine. They wouldn't have the travel or the expenses that D-1 teams have. Sometimes pride gets in the way with these schools. They want to maintain being a D-1 school , but they can not honestly compete economically or on the field.

[Jason G]

The price I was referring to was the subjection to criticism of playing a schedule that is believed to be inferior to most and thus the inability to have an impressive enough season to have a significant national impact.

Often times the non-BCS schools do all they can to answer their critics where schedule strength is concerned but the end result is still deemed as not enough by the powers that be and many fans that don't know how difficult it is to get a BCS type program to agree to play a lesser known program. That, in general, is what I meant by the losing end of the situation.

A change in the way games are scheduled that is fair to all Division 1-A schools is what is needed. In most cases it may be fair for the "haves" as it is now but as long as the BCS schools hold most the cards and can choose who and where they play it will not be fair to the "have nots".

[mountainman]

Hey Jason G. Thanks for defining those terms and for clarifying, for me anyway, the points you were making.

I'm sure you agree that college football is a great game. Sure it has shortcomings and failings, but all things considered the good far and away out weighs the bad.

[ktffan]

The reason I used PERCIEVED in an earlier post was simply to prove my point. If BCS schools won't schedule non-BCS schools how do they know how good the non-BCS schools are?

Because majors are kicking mid-majors tails on a regular basis, refer to my first post.