Southern Miss taking on 7 bowl teams in 2006

[colorado_loves_football]

I applaud S. Mississippi for bold scheduling. It is high risk high reward and if they win they will get noticed.

Here's a link related to TCU's sheduling, while they were still a member of C-USA, but unless I'm mistaken, it likely still applies, tell me that's not a competitive non-conference shedule:
http://conferenceusa.collegesports.com/ ... 02aaa.html

I also found a related link where TCU's new athletic director was interviewed with respect to sheduling, and there were some interesting points made in that regard:
http://www.magazine.tcu.edu/articles/20 ... eid=200503

It mostly corroborated the thinking behind scheduling teams like Baylor, SMU, and Texas Tech. Those are former SWC teams, TCU rivals. That's what attracts the most fan interest, not the teams you mention. I found it interesting that TCU 'substituted' Army for Navy, last year. This year they will also play Army. But Army was a C-USA member, and likely 'fits' TCU's agenda better than Navy does.

Please read about how Mountain West is looking to become BCS 'eligible'.
That's likely the reason TCU opted to join that conference after having been a member of C-USA, from the onset. It was a strategic move.
Their being added to the MWC gave them a 9th member, and also gave them some leverage, with respect to being included in the BCS, after Utah qualified. Obviously it was a trade-off, and somewhat of a risk.
C-USA gave them 'traditional' pairings, but MWC gave them more opportunity. So far, I'd say it's been a good move for TCU.

[Spence]

Q: Alright, you mentioned it. What's your scheduling philosophy?

A: It's important to play traditional rivals in our non-conference schedule. This year's football schedule is a good example. We play a strong regional opponent in Oklahoma. We play a traditional rival in SMU. And then we play a national opponent in Army. That's a good balance for us. When we schedule in the future, that's the pattern we want to follow.

Q: What about Texas and Texas A&M?

A: We have Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma and Arkansas on future schedules already. That's pretty attractive. Jack Hesselbrock has done a great job at that. But we understand the fan interest with those two schools and that will definitely be on our radar. We have great respect for those programs, and we want to see them do well. We want all Texas schools to do well, except when they play us and Mountain West teams.

TCU has done a pretty good job in scheduling mid-level to upper mid level BCS schools to help their schedule. Oklahoma is the only upper level BCS team they have scheduled so far. The problem with scheduling mid level BCS teams is you really have to do well against them to crack the BCS that way. Winning isn't enough, because those teams schedule a lot of weaker non conference games to get bowl eligible. Glenn Mason at Minnesota does it every year. They win all 4 non conference games and then try and eek out a couple of wins in the Big 10.

TCU needs teams like Texas, LSU, Oklahoma, and such on the schedule if they want to play in the BCS.

I don't have a problem with trying to create regional rivalries outside the conference. That is what most teams do now. You wanted a system that would give every individual school a shot at the BCS championship every year. That is why I put forth the proposal I did. I am not unhappy with the current system. I don't think they get it right all the time, but I do think they do a pretty good job deciding who are the best teams.

The Mountain West was looking to try and get in to the BCS if the B-East falls out. I don't blame them for giving it a shot, but I don't think the B-East is going to get kicked out of the BCS. I think the Miami and Va. Tech leaving the B-East will help them in the long run. Not having Miami in the conference should help them recruit Fla. better and I think Pitt and Syracuse, and West Virgina have a golden opportunity to become elite programs. I think that the Big East is here to stay in the BCS.

[colorado_loves_football]

TCU has done a pretty good job in scheduling mid-level to upper mid level BCS schools to help their schedule.

TCU needs teams like Texas, LSU, Oklahoma, and such on the schedule if they want to play in the BCS.

I don't have a problem with trying to create regional rivalries outside the conference. That is what most teams do now. You wanted a system that would give every individual school a shot at the BCS championship every year. That is why I put forth the proposal I did. I am not unhappy with the current system. I don't think they get it right all the time, but I do think they do a pretty good job deciding who are the best teams.

Spence I agree with you that in general TCU (or any other non-BCS team) will likely need to schedule competitive games in order to be 'assured' a BCS invitation, but I think that's what they've done, regardless, at least last year. This year will also be a 'test' for TCU in terms of playing to the level of their competition.
I included a link, my last post that referred to TCU's non-conference schedules, made while TCU was still a C-USA member, but those games likely 'transferred' along with TCU, to the Mountain West Conference, only exception I can think of being Army, substituted for Navy, after Army became an independent.

My understanding is that conferences will be 'graded' beginning in 2007, from top-to-bottom, thereby giving the MWC some 'leverage' with respect to the BCS, assuming they remain competitive. Another possible scenario, I forsee happening, is the Big East maybe doing something along the lines of what the ACC did, in order to 'secure' themselves a BCS 'bid'. The Big Ten, obvioiusly isn't worried, for reasons you already referred to but the Big East isnt' out of the woods yet. They simply showed that they are better than many expected, through W.Virginia's 'upset' win over Georgia, in the Sugar Bowl.

Something I can maybe see happening, is the WAC and MWC 'reuniting' in the interest of competitive play. The WAC until 1998 was one conference, composed of it's present membership (minus Sun Belt members Idaho, Utah St, and New Mexico St) together with C-USA members (Rice, Tulsa, SMU, UTEP, and TCU) and the MWC, combined.
Since then, both conferences have re-established themselves as nearly 'equals' at least in terms of their marketablity. Should a 'reunion' occur, I think that maybe 'doubles' their market share, and likely puts them in a much more favorable light as far as the BCS is concerned. That's maybe why I suspect the Big East might consider 'filling' its allotment with viable teams, in order to 'maintain' their presence as a BCS 'front-runner'. I believe the Big East might become a lot more proactive than they have been prior to the ACC's acquisitions, since they stand to lose a lot more this time around, than if they don't.

That is maybe yet another reason why I think the Big Ten, while 'safe' as far as a BCS bid is concerned, might want to consider adopting the 'championship' format. How they do it is their business, but not doing anything, I think might hurt them logistically. However, as far as 'securing' themselves a BCS bid, I'm sure that's not something they need to worry about. But, I for one, think it could benefit them, similar to how it helped serve the ACC, this year.

TCU likely 'jumped' ship to the Mountain West Conference to maintain their 'competitive' advantage. Had they not done that, they likely would have remained a C-USA team forever. I think it's a gamble that so far has paid off handsomely for their football program. They are playing in a conference that has already been admitted to the BCS, and could become a 'mainstay' should circumstances warrant it.

It's my opinion that these changes, by-and-large, are good for everyone.
The Big East now needs to reassess where it stands, and either 'maintain' a bid, or lose it through competition. Nothing could be fairer, from my perspective. The ACC likely recognized the situation sooner than anyone else, so they should be applauded, at least for acting before it became a problem, as it easily could have been, without those acquisitions.

[Spence]

It's my opinion that these changes, by-and-large, are good for everyone.
The Big East now needs to reassess where it stands, and either 'maintain' a bid, or lose it through competition. Nothing could be fairer, from my perspective. The ACC likely recognized the situation sooner than anyone else, so they should be applauded, at least for acting before it became a problem, as it easily could have been, without those acquisitions.

While the B-East isn't out of the woods, WVU's win over Georgia I would think, buys them some time to sure up the conference as far as the BCS is concerned.

As far as the B-10 is concerned, they don't need the money from a championship game. The B-10 is a very profitable conference. As for fretting over losing our competitive edge in the BCS - We'll take our chances. The Big 10 is 8-5 overall in BCS games. Ohio State is 4-0, Michigan is 1-2, Wisconsin is 2-0, Penn State is 1-0, Illinois is 0-1, Iowa is 0-1, Purdue is 0-1. The 8 wins are the most by any conference in the short history of the BCS.

[colorado_loves_football]

While the B-East isn't out of the woods, WVU's win over Georgia I would think, buys them some time to sure up the conference as far as the BCS is concerned.

As far as the B-10 is concerned, they don't need the money from a championship game. The B-10 is a very profitable conference. As for fretting over losing our competitive edge in the BCS - We'll take our chances. The Big 10 is 8-5 overall in BCS games. Ohio State is 4-0, Michigan is 1-2, Wisconsin is 2-0, Penn State is 1-0, Illinois is 0-1, Iowa is 0-1, Purdue is 0-1. The 8 wins are the most by any conference in the short history of the BCS.

I'm not saying the Big Ten necessarily needs to do anything at all, they are a 'shoe-in' for the BCS, forever, in my opinion. I've always had a high opinion of Big Ten athletics from the time I was a kid, in fact I was debating (assuming I had the talent, I didn't) whether I wanted to play for Bo Schembechler, Woody Hayes, or Bill Mallory (Indiana). What I did was go to the University of Colorado, where I was a spectator, but witnessed their first national championship, over Notre Dame (1990). Trust me, I wasn't NCAA material, and likely wouldn't have been, in a million years, but there is an interesting sidelight to my story. I saw Jeff Campbell, a University of Colorado walk-on, and he wasn't any bigger, if at all than I was, so that made me feel better! He later played professional football for the Denver Broncos, and made significant contributions to Colorado in 1989, as a wide reciever and special teams player. I've met Tom Rouen, the punter for the Seattle Seahawks. I had a friend in high school who was probably professional material,but unfortunately he got into drugs, but for the time he played, he was likely one of the best players in the state.
Played for a team that won the state championship. Pomona High School.
As for me, I hardly ever played a down, anywhere.
I made my high school freshman team, and possibly would have started on varsity but I got hurt, and that ended whatever aspirations I had for a career as a football player. Like I said I wasn't very big, but Jeff Campbell made it! He was a pretty good player, too. My biggest problem was lack of natural ability, but I maybe made up for it in other ways. But I doubt I was NCAA material. But I"ve always enjoyed it.

Now as far as the Big Ten goes, I simply want them to be as competitive as any other conference. I hope the Big East eventually goes with the 'championship' format. Up until now, some conferences have been able to 'secure' BCS 'at large' bids for teams that either tied, or were second in their confernece. I would prefer that those bids be 'reserved' for competing conference champions. This year, NCAA basketball, Memphis secured themselves a #1 bid, largely though C-USA play (one loss). That validates my argument that your conference record is more important than your overall record although Memphis was 30-3. Nevada was another team that was selected, along with Air Force, Utah St., San Diego St., and S. Missouri St. They said it was the year of the 'mid-major' I guess we'll see. But that shows that teams outside the 'traditional' conferences can compete. Whether or not they can win, remains to be seen, but I like having them represented, anyway.
I already completed my 'bracket' hopefully I'll do better there than I did in the bowl pairings. I like also how there will be one 'champion' after it's all said and done, but I don't think I want a 64 (or 65) field for NCAA football, too much of a good thing, but a ten-team 'bracket' I think is sufficient to select a 'unanimous' national champion.

[Jason G]

In looking at the future schedules for Southern Miss, I see evidence of the scheduling problem I often refer to on this board.
While I think it is fantastic that USM is playing programs in the BCS leagues I still see that most of these games are on the road.
I just would like to see schools like Ohio State, Penn State, Notre Dame, Georgia and UCLA play games at schools in the non-BCS leagues. It seems like whenever a non-BCS school is actually able to host a BCS school it is always a BCS school that is expected to have no better than a .500 record in their league.

[Spence]

While I think it is fantastic that USM is playing programs in the BCS leagues I still see that most of these games are on the road.
I just would like to see schools like Ohio State, Penn State, Notre Dame, Georgia and UCLA play games at schools in the non-BCS leagues. It seems like whenever a non-BCS school is actually able to host a BCS school it is always a BCS school that is expected to have no better than a .500 record in their league.

This isn't fair, but it is a money thing. The non BCS schools usually take these games for the paycheck. San Jose St. played one of the toughest schedules in the country a few years ago with most games of the games on the road because they needed cash. Their AD set the team up for slaughter because it was the only way they could keep the program running.

[colorado_loves_football]

In looking at the future schedules for Southern Miss, I see evidence of the scheduling problem I often refer to on this board.
While I think it is fantastic that USM is playing programs in the BCS leagues I still see that most of these games are on the road.
I just would like to see schools like Ohio State, Penn State, Notre Dame, Georgia and UCLA play games at schools in the non-BCS leagues. It seems like whenever a non-BCS school is actually able to host a BCS school it is always a BCS school that is expected to have no better than a .500 record in their league.

I noticed, that as well. I wonder if maybe S. Mississippi isn't strapped for cash?
I don't think playing all those teams on the road is going to make S. Mississippi better, but I could be wrong. They are obviously gambling that it will give them more 'push' somewhere, maybe in the BCS.
TCU is obviously a lot smarter than S. Mississippi is, schedule-wise. As far as I know, they only scedule home & away series, including Oklahoma! Why is that better?
Well, even if you get your lunch handed to you , in Norman, Oklahoma (or more appropriately, Lubbock, TX) there always 'redemption'. All S. Mississippi can hope for is that they only get beat, badly, by the same team once! So, no, not only do I not think it's fair, I think it's schedule 'suicide' something I made pretty clear in a previous post.
It might explain, however why TCU doesn't schedule Penn St. They likely would have to play them 'exclusively' in Happy Valley. Northwestern is likely a lot more accomodating. S. Mississippi would be a lot 'smarter' to make deals like TCU does.

[Spence]

40% of the schools make money. 30% break even. 30% lose money.

Ohio State has the largest athletics program at around 90 million dollars. They fund 36 sports and roughly 900 student athletes.

Texas is the most profitable athletic program at around 40 million a year.

I couldn't find all the data from the financial statement, but I'll keep looking and see if I can give you a link.

[colorado_loves_football]

40% of the schools make money. 30% break even. 30% lose money.

Ohio State has the largest athletics program at around 90 million dollars. They fund 36 sports and roughly 900 student athletes.

Texas is the most profitable athletic program at around 40 million a year.

I couldn't find all the data from the financial statement, but I'll keep looking and see if I can give you a link.

That's an interesting breakdown, actually. I'm surprised that many lose money, but it might be because they do'nt know how to schedule! I'm joking,but I think what S. Mississippi is doing isn't good for their program, unless they actually think they can beat those teams.
A much simpler solution would be for them to join the SEC, then at least they'd get half of them at home. Similar situation exists for TCU. They 'schedule' teams like Baylor, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Arkansas, along with SMU. But, a much 'simpler' and 'better' solution, would be for them to join the Big XII. But they have to be invited first.
Marshall would make a good Big East team, in my opinion, but they also need to be invited. I've already suggested one way in which conferences could be reconfigured. I mentioned it because it's yet another way in which teams can make appropriate scheduling, yet play 'traditional' non-conference opponents

[Spence]

That's an interesting breakdown, actually. I'm surprised that many lose money, but it might be because they do'nt know how to schedule! I'm joking,but I think what S. Mississippi is doing isn't good for their program, unless they actually think they can beat those teams.

You have to beat those teams to have a legit argument in being included in a BCS bowl. If you can't beat teams like that you don't belong.

[colorado_loves_football]

You have to beat those teams to have a legit argument in being included in a BCS bowl. If you can't beat teams like that you don't belong.

I might agree that if you are S. Mississippi, you likely need to beat 'some' of those teams to be considered, but surely not all.
You seem to forget that S. Mississippi is a relatively small school, at least by some standards, and therefore likely hold a fairly significant disadvantage when it comes to playing a team like LSU, then to have to play them in Baton Rouge, I think is expecting too much from them.
I have a question, Spence, exactly why should any 'non-BCS' team necessarily have to schedule 'heavyweights'? They don't, and shouldn't, but some obviously do, anyway.
Maybe by playing those teams S. Mississippi will come away better prepared to play in a BCS game, but it obviously isn't a prerequisite. The C-USA champion, more likely is selected as an 'automatic' representative to the Liberty Bowl, than to a BCS bowl. In fact, I can't think of a C-USA team that has been seriously considered for a bowl, unless i'ts TCU. S. Mississippi, maybe partly because of their schedule, never, to my knowledge was ever seriously considered for a BCS 'at large' game. TCU, obviously has, but they have more typically been an 'alternate', than a direct representative, even without S. Mississippi in the 'mix'.
I believe my proposal, awarding an 'at large' bid to the 'traditional' BCS would not only be fair, it would allow a team like S. Mississippi access, when they 'earn' it through competitive play. Barring that happening, S. Mississippi likely will be competing, year-in, year-out, for a Liberty Bowl bid, as they were expected to do last year, but lost momentum, nearly failing to qualify for a bowl. Tell me how they are supposed to beat Penn St, when they struggle against Arkansas St?

[Spence]

Spence, exactly why should any 'non-BCS' team necessarily have to schedule 'heavyweights'?

To prove they are good enough.

If they want to play in the Liberty bowl every year then they can play whatever schedule they want. If you want to play in a BCS bowl, you need to prove you belong. Every BCS team plays at least 2 or 3 top ranked teams a year. Why would it be "fair" to give access to a non BCS team who didn't do as much?

[colorado_loves_football]

If they want to play in the Liberty bowl every year then they can play whatever schedule they want. If you want to play in a BCS bowl, you need to prove you belong. Every BCS team plays at least 2 or 3 top ranked teams a year. Why would it be "fair" to give access to a non BCS team who didn't do as much?

I might agree with you that any team needs to be sufficiently qualified before they are admitted, but I think if you analyze Tulsa's record you might come away with a different conclusion. They lost, badly, to Minnesota, early, followed by a shellacking by the Oklahoma Sooners, to begin the year 0-2. They then beat a pretty decent Memphis team to get back on track, followed by a loss to Houston (one of two C-USA losses), putting them at 2-3 overall.
That means, they won 7 of their last 8 games, only loss coming at the hands of Texas-El Paso, a team that at the time was 'in the hunt' for a C-USA division title, might have secured that for them, but for SMU!
Tulsa then beat UCF in the C-USA 'championship' a game played in Orlando, FL. UCF had only lost one C-USA game, to S. Mississippi.
Beating Fresno St, in my opinion, locked them in as not only the best in C-USA, but likely the best in the WAC, as well. They hadn't beaten them in all the time they were WAC co-members, and Fresno St, was improved this year, over previous years.
Tulsa, likely was better than Boise St, but since they never played, we can only speculate, but remember, Nevada beat UCF by a missed X-tra point. That would, in my mind, give Tulsa the edge, in a hypothetical WAC pairing of teams. Only remaining question is who was better, Tulsa or TCU? Well, TCU beat Oklahoma, but both games were early in the year. I might have enjoyed seeing that game, but Fresno was selected, over TCU, unfortunately.
I think TCU would have struggled against Tulsa, myself. They didn't necessarily keep Iowa St. from scoring. A game pairing those two teams likey would have given the BCS a 'deserving' representative, unless you still don't believe TCU was a 'deserving' candidate. But, if they weren't then neither was Oregon. That's how I see it.

[Spence]

Tulsa never beat a ranked team, unless Fresno St. was ranked and I don't know if they were or not. Regardless they never beat more then 1 ranked opponent and so they didn't prove anything. There are at least 30 teams in the country that could play the same schedule as Tulsa and do better. That means that at least 30 teams were more qualified.