PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Info. SEC fans, pay attention!


catgrad
07-30-2009, 08:07 PM
LOS ANGELES -- Quick facts from the Pac-10 before media day begins. Bet some of these surprise some folks:

The Pac-10 has a winning record vs. every BCS conference since 2000. Yes, even that one down yonder.
The Pac-10 is 9-2 in BCS bowls since 2000.
The Pac-10 has the highest all-time bowl game winning percentage of all FBS conferences.*
Moreover, as for this season, of the automatic qualifying BCS conferences:

The Pac-10 has the most teams -- six -- without any FCS (I-AA) opponents.
The Pac-10 plays the lowest percentage (13 percent) of nonconference games against FCS foes.
The Pac-10 plays the highest percentage of nonconference games (50 percent) games BCS opponents.

popque
07-30-2009, 10:06 PM
9 conference games leaves no time for FCS games. And I thought the PAC-10 was going back to 8 conference games sooner or later?

Ziggiles
07-31-2009, 12:30 AM
9 conference games leaves no time for FCS games. And I thought the PAC-10 was going back to 8 conference games sooner or later?

Doubt it's going to happen, no one wants to lose out the USC express train. If the right TV deal is struck, then there is going to be no need for a change in the schedule.

There needs to be a greater perception that the league is stronger than it is.

Winger
07-31-2009, 10:13 AM
Doubt it's going to happen, no one wants to lose out the USC express train. If the right TV deal is struck, then there is going to be no need for a change in the schedule.

There needs to be a greater perception that the league is stronger than it is.

For every teamnot named UCLA or USC it's big time about recruiting as well. No one wants to miss the opportunity to play in LA every other year or so. Would really hurt with recruiting the best in conference territory there is.

In terms of perception, the only way the Pac 10 is going to change things is by improving TV contracts/times, throughout the season. Until that happens my take is you will never have more than one Pac 10 team consistently in the running for a BCS bid, and until the Pac 10 starts putting more than one team in the BCS/National Title hunt, the rep of the conference will suffer. UCLA can beat Tennessee every year in September, but if the rest of the country doesn't get the chance to see them play their conference slate, the mo gets lost. If the contracts ever got improved, scheduling more elite OOC games later in the season would help a lot as well.

the real dill
07-31-2009, 10:57 AM
LOS ANGELES -- Quick facts from the Pac-10 before media day begins. Bet some of these surprise some folks:

The Pac-10 has a winning record vs. every BCS conference since 2000. Yes, even that one down yonder.
The Pac-10 is 9-2 in BCS bowls since 2000.
The Pac-10 has the highest all-time bowl game winning percentage of all FBS conferences.*
Moreover, as for this season, of the automatic qualifying BCS conferences:

The Pac-10 has the most teams -- six -- without any FCS (I-AA) opponents.
The Pac-10 plays the lowest percentage (13 percent) of nonconference games against FCS foes.
The Pac-10 plays the highest percentage of nonconference games (50 percent) games BCS opponents.

You do realize the SEC has 4 MNC's since 2000 right?

Winger
07-31-2009, 11:36 AM
You do realize the SEC has 4 MNC's since 2000 right?

Rigged system.

the real dill
07-31-2009, 11:45 AM
Rigged system.

that the PAC 10 agreed to

Winger
07-31-2009, 11:46 AM
that the PAC 10 agreed to

Agreed, but it's still rigged, and something like "4 MNCs" needs to be taken with a grain of salt imo.

catgrad
07-31-2009, 11:49 AM
that the PAC 10 agreed to

I still consider USC the better team when LSU got play Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl.

the real dill
07-31-2009, 11:53 AM
I still consider USC the better team when LSU got play Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl.

and SEC fans still think Auburn was a better team than USC in 2004

PerpEph
07-31-2009, 12:05 PM
and SEC fans still think Auburn was a better team than USC in 2004

Well sure. But those people are morons.

Shouldn't you be pimping the Big 12, Dill, not the SEC?

Winger
07-31-2009, 12:25 PM
and SEC fans still think Auburn was a better team than USC in 2004

Amongst the reasons one shouldn't use MNCs in discussions of conference strength.

Another would be:

USC would have been pick em with Florida last season, favored over OU/UT/Alabama/Utah; but, despite having identical records, they were left out in favor of the OU/UT winner vs the UF/Alabama winner.

It's about one step removed from gymnastics and Russian judges ...

the real dill
07-31-2009, 12:42 PM
Amongst the reasons one shouldn't use MNCs in discussions of conference strength.

Another would be:

USC would have been pick em with Florida last season, favored over OU/UT/Alabama/Utah; but, despite having identical records, they were left out in favor of the OU/UT winner vs the UF/Alabama winner.

It's about one step removed from gymnastics and Russian judges ...

actually, the OU/UT winner was UT, and OU got the nod anyways. I also love how you state your own handicapping lines as if it were some sort of fact or true indicator.

the real dill
07-31-2009, 12:44 PM
Well sure. But those people are morons.

Shouldn't you be pimping the Big 12, Dill, not the SEC?

I don't think te Big 12 needs to be pimped. It does just fine getting into national title games and is nationally recognized at one of the top 2 conferences in the nation. The rest of the country already argues daily on whether the best conference is the Big XII or SEC on the mainboard.

Winger
07-31-2009, 12:54 PM
actually, the OU/UT winner was UT, and OU got the nod anyways. I also love how you state your own handicapping lines as if it were some sort of fact or true indicator.

Sorry, I meant "winner" in the sense that if OU won the B12 title game they went, and if they lost UT went.

Point being, USC was left out in favor of any of 4 SEC/Big 12 teams, before they even played their CC games, despite the fact that they were arguably as good if not better than all of them.

And that's entirely based on the polls/voting - which imo is why one shouldn't use MNCs as an indicator of conference strength.

FWIW, one could almost make the same arguement for Penn St and Utah.

As to why I use Vegas - it's the least biased and most predictive indicator of who the better teams are.

Why do you use MNCs?

Winger
07-31-2009, 01:11 PM
Big 12 ... is nationally recognized at one of the top 2 conferences in the nation.

Last season maybe.

Sagarin Final Conference Ranks for the Last 10 Years

YEAR----------Pac 10---------Big 12-------

2008------------4---------------2---------
2007------------2---------------3---------
2006------------3---------------6---------
2005------------4---------------3---------
2004------------2---------------4---------
2003------------4---------------5---------
2002------------2---------------1---------
2001------------3---------------2---------
2000------------1---------------3---------
1999------------5---------------4---------

Avg.------------3---------------3.3-------

azcat49
07-31-2009, 01:19 PM
Winger is right!!!!

I have 4 unicorns in my back yard. They are just as mythical as these NC's

Intermezzo
07-31-2009, 01:40 PM
Last season maybe.

Sagarin Final Conference Ranks for the Last 10 Years

YEAR----------Pac 10---------Big 12-------

2008------------4---------------2---------
2007------------2---------------3---------
2006------------3---------------6---------
2005------------4---------------3---------
2004------------2---------------4---------
2003------------4---------------5---------
2002------------2---------------1---------
2001------------3---------------2---------
2000------------1---------------3---------
1999------------5---------------4---------

Avg.------------3---------------3.3-------


Then per Dill, the Pac is the #1 conference.

Zona_Soccer10
07-31-2009, 03:57 PM
It's sad how outside USC the PAC-10 gets so little credit. Especially seeing last years dominating bowl season.

the real dill
07-31-2009, 05:09 PM
It's sad how outside USC the PAC-10 gets so little credit. Especially seeing last years dominating bowl season.

a good start would be to not let the MWC dominate the OOC slate

Zona_Soccer10
07-31-2009, 05:22 PM
a good start would be to not let the MWC dominate the OOC slate

Indeed. I bet New Mexico fans let out a big sighly frown when Arizona wasn't placed on their schedule this year.

PerpEph
07-31-2009, 05:26 PM
a good start would be to not let the MWC dominate the OOC slate

Well, we can't all play Louisiana-Monroe, Wyoming, UTEP and UCF, now can we?

Every Pac-10 team except OSU plays at least one OOC game against a major conference BCS team, plus the 9-game round robin format. By my calculations, that's a hell of a lot less "gimmes" than, say, Texas?

catgrad
07-31-2009, 05:33 PM
Well, we can't all play Louisiana-Monroe, Wyoming, UTEP and UCF, now can we?

Every Pac-10 team except OSU plays at least one OOC game against a major conference BCS team, plus the 9-game round robin format. By my calculations, that's a hell of a lot less "gimmes" than, say, Texas?


Prevsious thread on OOC schedules: http://forum.goazcats.com/showthread.php?t=92410

It's pretty obvious the Pac 10 schools play a much more difficult schedule than other BCS schools.

the real dill
07-31-2009, 05:35 PM
Well, we can't all play Louisiana-Monroe, Wyoming, UTEP and UCF, now can we?

Every Pac-10 team except OSU plays at least one OOC game against a major conference BCS team, plus the 9-game round robin format. By my calculations, that's a hell of a lot less "gimmes" than, say, Texas?

Texas had Utah and Arkansas on the schedule and both teams utilized their buyout clause.

Some schools don't exactly have BCS opponents lining up to play them. If fact, they have schools paying them 7 figures just so they don't have to play the game they scheduled 10 years ago. When you have two schools back out of games under 2 years from the scheduled date, you're stuck picking up teams who will walk into a bloodbath for the seven figure payout.

the real dill
07-31-2009, 05:37 PM
Prevsious thread on OOC schedules: http://forum.goazcats.com/showthread.php?t=92410

It's pretty obvious the Pac 10 schools play a much more difficult schedule than other BCS schools.

We have had this discussion. A Pac 10 team HAS to pick up BCS OOC wins if they want to play in the MNC game due to the weakness of their conference schedule. SEC and Big XII teams get enough SOS from their conference schedules to make OOC games irrelevant.

The one exception I can think of is Auburn 2004.

catgrad
07-31-2009, 05:37 PM
Texas had Utah and Arkansas on the schedule and both teams utilized their buyout clause.

Some schools don't exactly have BCS opponents lining up to play them. If fact, they have schools paying them 7 figures just so they don't have to play the game they scheduled 10 years ago. When you have two schools back out of games under 2 years from the scheduled date, you're stuck picking up teams who will walk into a bloodbath for the seven figure payout.

And yet the Pac 10 seems to have plenty of BCS team willing to play them. Why is that?

the real dill
07-31-2009, 05:44 PM
And yet the Pac 10 seems to have plenty of BCS team willing to play them. Why is that?

Yes, Baylor and Iowa St. don't have problems getting BCS teams to schedule them either. I doubt USC will continue to get big time games consistently. Texas signed up to play UCLA in a home and home so give credit for UCLA for stepping up to the table.

Flipper
07-31-2009, 05:59 PM
Yes, Baylor and Iowa St. don't have problems getting BCS teams to schedule them either. I doubt USC will continue to get big time games consistently. Texas signed up to play UCLA in a home and home so give credit for UCLA for stepping up to the table.

This is the most asinine statement yet.:) I guess it can come true if the rest of the big boys emulate the SEC.

You got to give credit where credit is due.

SC will always have the best OOC schedule. They've had Notre Dame on their schedule since the year of the flood, they're playing OSU now, and WILL schedule anybody, anywhere. Too bad the SEC folks don't want to schedule them anymore, what with the pasting they've administered to Auburn, Arkansas, etc, etc.

Dill, you're in the wrong conference to argue OOC scheduling.;)

the real dill
07-31-2009, 06:04 PM
This is the most asinine statement yet.:) I guess it can come true if the rest of the big boys emulate the SEC.

You got to give credit where credit is due.

SC will always have the best OOC schedule. They've had Notre Dame on their schedule since the year of the flood, they're playing OSU now, and WILL schedule anybody, anywhere. Too bad the SEC folks don't want to schedule them anymore, what with the pasting they've administered to Auburn, Arkansas, etc, etc.

Dill, you're in the wrong conference to argue OOC scheduling.;)

I've said it a million times, I think it is stupid to schedule strong OOC if you're in the Big XII or SEC. You need to if you are in a weaker conference.

Look at total SOS standing for 2008. Does it look like SEC and Big XII need to fix their SOS?

1 Florida A = 98.74 13 1 76.87( 4) 2 1 | 5 1 | 95.76 2 | 102.62 1
2 Southern California A = 94.85 12 1 75.23( 16) 1 0 | 5 1 | 90.60 5 | 102.16 2
3 Oklahoma A = 94.15 12 2 76.38( 7) 2 2 | 5 2 | 91.12 4 | 97.91 3
4 Texas A = 93.50 12 1 75.47( 14) 1 1 | 4 1 | 91.62 3 | 95.25 4
5 Utah A = 91.37 13 0 70.85( 56) 2 0 | 3 0 | 96.73 1 | 87.75 10
6 Alabama A = 89.48 12 2 73.83( 28) 1 2 | 4 2 | 89.52 6 | 89.00 6
7 TCU A = 89.09 11 2 69.77( 69) 0 2 | 1 2 | 88.75 7 | 88.98 7
8 Penn State A = 88.26 11 2 71.19( 55) 0 1 | 2 2 | 84.07 13 | 94.30 5
9 Texas Tech A = 86.75 11 2 73.83( 27) 1 2 | 3 2 | 85.93 9 | 87.15 12
10 Mississippi A = 86.28 9 4 74.65( 20) 2 1 | 3 2 | 84.88 10 | 87.34 11

azcat49
07-31-2009, 06:40 PM
If your in the Big 12 you have to schedule weaker OOC, what a joke.

You can lump these teams in the same pot:

TX/Ok/USC

Mizzu/OK St/TT/Oregon/Cal

Kansas/Ore. ST

Neb/AZ/ASSU

AnM/KST/Furd/UCLA

Baylor/ISU/Wazzu/Wash

So you have one more elite team that is balanced by the rediculous OOC schedule the Big 12 plays. They benefit from not playing a RR conf schedule as well.

Winger as already shown the Pac is on par with the SEC so let's wake up and get out of dream land.

Reydituto
07-31-2009, 06:43 PM
a good start would be to not let the MWC dominate the OOC slate

It's not how you start, it's how you finish.

We have had this discussion. A Pac 10 team HAS to pick up BCS OOC wins if they want to play in the MNC game due to the weakness of their conference schedule.

That's a load of schit. Pac-10 teams beat each other up as much as any conference, including your precious Big XII.

WayneNewton
07-31-2009, 06:48 PM
'The Phantom Menace' was less disappointing than the Big 12 South's bowl performance last year.

catgrad
07-31-2009, 06:51 PM
Yes, Baylor and Iowa St. don't have problems getting BCS teams to schedule them either. I doubt USC will continue to get big time games consistently. Texas signed up to play UCLA in a home and home so give credit for UCLA for stepping up to the table.

USC has been getting big time games consistently for a long time. What would things change now? They've done home & homes with Ohio State. Visited Auburn. Played Va. Tech in D.C. Beat down on Arkansas, etc... Plus, they still face a talented but overrated Notre Dame team EVERY year.

We've been down this road before. Why is the Pac 10 conference schedule "weaker" than the Big 12? Because you said so? Nobody gets a free pass in the Pac 10. You don't get to skip Oklahoma, Texas or whoever on the schedule. It's B.S. to claim your conference schedule is daunting when you don't play some of the toughest teams in your conference and then load up on four cupcakes OOC.

The only thing that helps "balance" things out is Big 12 title game. But that ONLY applies to two teams playing an extra game against a strong opponent.

Flipper
07-31-2009, 07:24 PM
USC has been getting big time games consistently for a long time. What would things change now? They've done home & homes with Ohio State. Visited Auburn. Played Va. Tech in D.C. Beat down on Arkansas, etc... Plus, they still face a talented but overrated Notre Dame team EVERY year.

We've been down this road before. Why is the Pac 10 conference schedule "weaker" than the Big 12? Because you said so? Nobody gets a free pass in the Pac 10. You don't get to skip Oklahoma, Texas or whoever on the schedule. It's B.S. to claim your conference schedule is daunting when you don't play some of the toughest teams in your conference and then load up on four cupcakes OOC.

The only thing that helps "balance" things out is Big 12 title game. But that ONLY applies to two teams playing an extra game against a strong opponent.

Generally at HOME.:);)

the real dill
07-31-2009, 07:56 PM
USC has been getting big time games consistently for a long time. What would things change now? They've done home & homes with Ohio State. Visited Auburn. Played Va. Tech in D.C. Beat down on Arkansas, etc... Plus, they still face a talented but overrated Notre Dame team EVERY year.

We've been down this road before. Why is the Pac 10 conference schedule "weaker" than the Big 12? Because you said so? Nobody gets a free pass in the Pac 10. You don't get to skip Oklahoma, Texas or whoever on the schedule. It's B.S. to claim your conference schedule is daunting when you don't play some of the toughest teams in your conference and then load up on four cupcakes OOC.

The only thing that helps "balance" things out is Big 12 title game. But that ONLY applies to two teams playing an extra game against a strong opponent.

Washington
Virginia
South Carolina
Florida
Arkansas
Duke
Oklahoma
Oregon St.
Wake Forest
NC State

Sorry, what I posted above was incorrect. This is the top ten schedule rankings according to Sagarin. Pac 10 and Big XII schedules were about even. It appears whatever the two conferences are doing in regards to balancing OOC plus conference scheduling is just about evening out. What is amazing is that the Big XII and PAC 10 combined for 11 of the top 25 schedules in the country (with Tech and A&M knocking on the door). The Big XII will be hurt this year by Texas' joke of an OOC schedule.




Washington (1)
Oklahoma (7)
Oregon St (8)
Stanford (12)
Texas (14)
USC (16)
UCLA (18)
Colorado (19)
Oregon (22)
Washington St. (23)
Cal (24)
Tech (27)
A&M (30)
Arizona St. (32)
Nebraska (38)
Kansas (39)
Oklahoma St. (43)
Mizzou (45)
Iowa St (51)
Arizona (57)
Kansas St. (62)

PerpEph
07-31-2009, 08:04 PM
Washington
Virginia
South Carolina
Florida
Arkansas
Duke
Oklahoma
Oregon St.
Wake Forest
NC State

Sorry, what I posted above was incorrect. This is the top ten schedule rankings according to Sagarin. Pac 10 and Big XII schedules were about even. It appears whatever the two conferences are doing in regards to balancing OOC plus conference scheduling is just about evening out. What is amazing is that the Big XII and PAC 10 combined for 11 of the top 25 schedules in the country (with Tech and A&M knocking on the door). The Big XII will be hurt this year by Texas' joke of an OOC schedule.




Washington (1)
Oklahoma (7)
Oregon St (8)
Stanford (12)
Texas (14)
USC (16)
UCLA (18)
Colorado (19)
Oregon (22)
Washington St. (23)
Cal (24)
Tech (27)
A&M (30)
Arizona St. (32)
Nebraska (38)
Kansas (39)
Oklahoma St. (43)
Mizzou (45)
Iowa St (51)
Arizona (57)
Kansas St. (62)


Would like to point out that it benefits the Big 12 to "combine" with the Pac-10 for number of top-25 schedules, since the Pac-10 has 8 of those, and the Big 12 only 3...

Alright, I quit. I just think the Pac-10 is an underrated football conference, and the general lack of respect kills me. Not accusing you, Dill. Just generally.

the real dill
07-31-2009, 08:16 PM
Would like to point out that it benefits the Big 12 to "combine" with the Pac-10 for number of top-25 schedules, since the Pac-10 has 8 of those, and the Big 12 only 3...

Alright, I quit. I just think the Pac-10 is an underrated football conference, and the general lack of respect kills me. Not accusing you, Dill. Just generally.


Ya know I didn't catch that. The Pac 10 basically has 1/3 of the top 25 schedules. I was just flat out wrong about the schedule, at least if you're big into Sagarin.

As far as last year's championship caliber teams OU (7), Texas (14), and USC (16) were pretty darn close. Washington going nuts OOC didn't really work out too well for them. I'm not a Pac-10 hater, but I do wish someone would consistentally challenge USC for the Pac-10 title. OU has won a bunch of Big XII titles, but there is another team that wins 10 games every year, won a MNC, etc. One team locking up a conference is not going to be good for the overall perception of the conference. The same thing is happening to the Big X with Ohio St.

My original point is I don't think the SEC is paying attention to anything with all those MNC trophies in their cases.

catgrad
07-31-2009, 08:30 PM
I'm not a Pac-10 hater, but I do wish someone would consistentally challenge USC for the Pac-10 title. OU has won a bunch of Big XII titles, but there is another team that wins 10 games every year, won a MNC, etc. One team locking up a conference is not going to be good for the overall perception of the conference. The same thing is happening to the Big X with Ohio St.

I agree that not having another team challenge USC for superiority doesn't reflect well on the conference. But then again, USC has been the most dominant program in the country since Carroll arrived. Certainly, Florida has done wonders...so it'll be interesting if they can maintain after Tebow leaves. But UF still stubbed their toe, at home, against Ole Miss last year. At least USC's loss to Oregon St. was on the road. The perception at the time was a horrible loss. At the end of the season, it looked much better with OSU having a great season.

USC is part of the national championship conversation EVERY season. Usually, Texas or OU is having a "rebuilding" type of year. It's rare that both are at the top of their game the same season. They're still VERY good, but maybe a year from challenging for the title. That hasn't been the case with SC. They reload much better than OU, Texas, Ohio St., & LSU.

The funny thing is, this may be a year the Pac 10 gets more respect because USC might not be as dominant.

PerpEph
07-31-2009, 08:52 PM
Ya know I didn't catch that. The Pac 10 basically has 1/3 of the top 25 schedules. I was just flat out wrong about the schedule, at least if you're big into Sagarin.

As far as last year's championship caliber teams OU (7), Texas (14), and USC (16) were pretty darn close. Washington going nuts OOC didn't really work out too well for them. I'm not a Pac-10 hater, but I do wish someone would consistentally challenge USC for the Pac-10 title. OU has won a bunch of Big XII titles, but there is another team that wins 10 games every year, won a MNC, etc. One team locking up a conference is not going to be good for the overall perception of the conference. The same thing is happening to the Big X with Ohio St.

My original point is I don't think the SEC is paying attention to anything with all those MNC trophies in their cases.


I agree with all of that.

Winger
07-31-2009, 09:21 PM
Washington (1)
Oklahoma (7)
Oregon St (8)
Stanford (12)
Texas (14)
USC (16)
UCLA (18)
Colorado (19)
Oregon (22)
Washington St. (23)
Cal (24)
Tech (27)
A&M (30)
Arizona St. (32)
Nebraska (38)
Kansas (39)
Oklahoma St. (43)
Mizzou (45)
Iowa St (51)
Arizona (57)
Kansas St. (62)

This is Sagarin right, for 2008-09?

Are these OOC schedules or does it include conference play?

Whatever system it is, the Pac 10 has 70 freaking % of its teams in the Top 25.

WildcatFan8
07-31-2009, 09:25 PM
We have had this discussion. A Pac 10 team HAS to pick up BCS OOC wins if they want to play in the MNC game due to the weakness of their conference schedule. SEC and Big XII teams get enough SOS from their conference schedules to make OOC games irrelevant.

The one exception I can think of is Auburn 2004.

It's all perception BS. How are you supposed to judge how strong the SEC is compared to other conferences when the only real teams they play are each other? When you schedule shools that are horribly weak for your out of conference games, and then play other teams with similar OOC schedules, how do you judge just exactly how do you judge that conference to be tough? It comes down to the fact that the SEC is really good at hyping themselves up and using east coast bias to convince the media that they are clearly the best conference in the land, despite any sort of proof. That's the problem with the college football championship system. It is completely subjective, based on people's opinions. That's why there's a team every year that is seemingly deserving of a shot to play for the national championship that doesn't get it. College football needs to be fixed. It was better the way it was before the BCS came. At least then there weren't teams who were parading around as undisputed national champions.

TheCat
07-31-2009, 10:55 PM
Texas had Utah and Arkansas on the schedule and both teams utilized their buyout clause.

Some schools don't exactly have BCS opponents lining up to play them. If fact, they have schools paying them 7 figures just so they don't have to play the game they scheduled 10 years ago. When you have two schools back out of games under 2 years from the scheduled date, you're stuck picking up teams who will walk into a bloodbath for the seven figure payout.


I don't doubt they pulled out but a seven figure buy-out seems really high. You have a source for those figures?

TheCat
07-31-2009, 10:58 PM
Yes, Baylor and Iowa St. don't have problems getting BCS teams to schedule them either. I doubt USC will continue to get big time games consistently. Texas signed up to play UCLA in a home and home so give credit for UCLA for stepping up to the table.


You mean give Texas credit right?

Flipper
08-01-2009, 09:28 AM
this is sagarin right, for 2008-09?

Are these ooc schedules or does it include conference play?

Whatever system it is, the pac 10 has 70 freaking % of its teams in the top 25.

80%:)

Morgan
08-01-2009, 11:25 AM
I don't doubt they pulled out but a seven figure buy-out seems really high. You have a source for those figures?

you misread his post.

Lower tier schools are getting 7 figures for a one game road game.

TheCat
08-01-2009, 12:13 PM
you misread his post.

Lower tier schools are getting 7 figures for a one game road game.


This is the line I'm referring to:

"Texas had Utah and Arkansas on the schedule and both teams utilized their buyout clause.

Some schools don't exactly have BCS opponents lining up to play them. If fact, they have schools paying them 7 figures just so they don't have to play the game they scheduled 10 years ago. "

This looks like some schools are paying 7 figures to cancel a game. I was wondering where that number came from? I understand that some teams are willing to pay big bucks for a 'W" . Afterall, they get ticket sales, concessions, parking etc. I don't think that many schools would allow a team to backout if there was a 7 figure number attached to it.

Winger
08-01-2009, 05:00 PM
It's all perception BS. How are you supposed to judge how strong the SEC is compared to other conferences when the only real teams they play are each other? When you schedule shools that are horribly weak for your out of conference games, and then play other teams with similar OOC schedules, how do you judge just exactly how do you judge that conference to be tough? It comes down to the fact that the SEC is really good at hyping themselves up and using east coast bias to convince the media that they are clearly the best conference in the land, despite any sort of proof. That's the problem with the college football championship system. It is completely subjective, based on people's opinions. That's why there's a team every year that is seemingly deserving of a shot to play for the national championship that doesn't get it. College football needs to be fixed. It was better the way it was before the BCS came. At least then there weren't teams who were parading around as undisputed national champions.

I agree with most all of that and having argued it endlessly with SEC and Big 12 fans learned some things.

First, they (particularly SEC fans) are generally incapable of having a discussion along these lines because they consider the premise laughable, it's almost like arguing with global warming folks.

Here's a list of things I have heard used to justify the conclusion that the SEC (and now you're starting to see more and more BXII fans doing the same) rules:

1. MNCs
2. OOC win % ignoring the lack of quality of competition and road games.
3. Playing in stronger bowl matchups to justify not having a better win %.
4. Number of coaches who have won MNCs.
5. Size of stadiums and passion of the fanbase.
6. Recruiting class ranks.
7. USC and The Nine Dwarfs.
8. The fact hat anyone that knows football knows the SEC is the best by a mile (the "everyone agrees" arguement).
9. Number of teams ranked in the Top 10.

For me it comes down to being very difficult to compare conferences given the limited number of quality OOC games, particularly for 12 vs. 10 team conferences.

I should admit that I hate the BCS as a system hoplessly flawed and corrupted by it's human element that has enabled the SEC (and maybe the BXII) to have become what they have become, at the expense of the other conferences.

Last season, I believe you could have made a reasonable arguement for any one of 6 teams being in the NC game.

smashmode
08-02-2009, 11:56 PM
Washington
Virginia
South Carolina
Florida
Arkansas
Duke
Oklahoma
Oregon St.
Wake Forest
NC State


It is moronic we keep on scheduling the way we do. We have to schedule the way teams not named USC schedules. A 'good' team, a average/below average team and a cupcake.

the real dill
08-03-2009, 10:35 AM
This is the line I'm referring to:

"Texas had Utah and Arkansas on the schedule and both teams utilized their buyout clause.

Some schools don't exactly have BCS opponents lining up to play them. If fact, they have schools paying them 7 figures just so they don't have to play the game they scheduled 10 years ago. "

This looks like some schools are paying 7 figures to cancel a game. I was wondering where that number came from? I understand that some teams are willing to pay big bucks for a 'W" . Afterall, they get ticket sales, concessions, parking etc. I don't think that many schools would allow a team to backout if there was a 7 figure number attached to it.

I'm sure it is public information, but it they were both reported by Orangebloods more than a year ago. The Utah game was cancelled maybe 3 years ago and they cancelled the entire home and home so it was 2 games and not just 1. so we are talking about pretty stale information. If I track it down I will post it here.

These are the only "articles" I can find on it right now.


AUSTIN, Texas -- Arkansas is bumping Texas from its 2009 schedule so that the Razorbacks can play Texas A&M in the start of a new series with the Aggies.

The Longhorns and Razorbacks, set to meet Sept. 13 in Austin, announced Friday that their postponed game in Fayetteville might not be rescheduled until 2013 or later.

Arkansas athletic director Jeff Long said that adding Texas A&M to its 2009 schedule gave the Razorbacks 13 games, forcing the school to remove one from its nonconference schedule.

"While it is unfortunate that we will have to postpone the return game in the Texas series, we felt that it was important to seize the window of opportunity to secure a long-term series with Texas A&M," Long said.

Texas holds a 55-21 advantage in matchups with the Razorbacks. The first meeting was in 1894.

The Longhorns also announced Friday the completion of their 2009 and 2010 schedules. Texas will add a three-game series with Wyoming beginning in 2009, and home games against Louisiana-Monroe in 2009 and Florida Atlantic in 2010.

Texas will travel to Wyoming on Sept. 12, 2009, and the Cowboys will play in Austin on Sept. 11, 2010, and Sept. 1, 2012.

Wyoming athletic director Tom Burman said he believed the Texas game in Wyoming would be the "biggest game in the history of War Memorial Stadium."

"We are extremely excited to bring one of the premier football programs in the country to our fans," Burman said.




The matchup that could have been
Just something to ponder on your afternoon ride home. I've mentioned it before, but remember, Utah had Texas on its schedule for this season in Rice-Eccles Stadium. The series was cancelled at then coach Urban Meyer's urging because he thought it made Utah's schedule too difficult.
Can you imagine, if the Utes had kept Texas on the schedule and had beaten the Longhorns, they would have had a very good chance of being in the national title game. I know a lot of folks don't think a non-BCS team will ever get that opportunity, but an undefeated Utah team with a win over the Longhorns could have made that jump, particularly with all the one-loss teams out there.
How odd would it have been if the Utes made it to the national title game, only to play Meyer and the Florida Gators?
Strange how things play out. What do you think, would the undefeated Utes have been voted into the national title game if they had a win over Texas? Do you think they would have stood a chance against the Gators?
Course, if Utah had lost to Texas, like TCU lost to Oklahoma, it probably wouldn't have been in the BCS and Boise State would be. That loss could have effectively cost the Utes $4.5 million, which is what they hope their BCS participation nets them. Maybe it was better for the Utes to cancel against Texas and play it a little safer, giving the chances of making it into the national title game normally are slim.
Thoughts?

Winger
08-03-2009, 12:38 PM
What do you think, would the undefeated Utes have been voted into the national title game if they had a win over Texas? Do you think they would have stood a chance against the Gators?
Thoughts?

Given that the Utes blew out Alabama, it's reasonable to assume they would have "stood a chance" against the Gators. Good grief.

If Utah subbed a UT win for, say, their Michigan or OSU wins, they probably would have leapfrogged UT ( who would have been a 2 loss team if all else held consistent), but not Florida, OU, or Alabama; and probably not USC. So, no, they wouldn't have made the NC game.

I would think, baring everyone else having 2 losses, an undefeated Utah team would need to be ranked #1 or #2 in the polls to make the NC game, it would appear that would require something better than beating UM, OSU, Weber State, and UNLV OOC. Maybe beating/scheduling 2 periennial Top 10-ish teams?

zonafaninky
08-03-2009, 03:20 PM
Agreed, but it's still rigged, and something like "4 MNCs" needs to be taken with a grain of salt imo.




Championships Schools BCS Championship Game Record

SEC 5 Tennessee (1998), LSU (2003, 2007), Florida (2006, 2008) 5-0 (1.000)

Big 12 2 Oklahoma (2000), Texas (2005) 2-4 (0.333)

Pac-10 1 USC (2004) 1-1 (0.500)

Big Ten 1 Ohio State (2002) 1-2 (0.333)

ACC 1 Florida State (1999) 1-2 (0.333)[21] (2-4 current alignment)

Big East 1 Miami (2001) 1-2 (0.333)[21] (0-0 current alignment)

ENOUGH SAID SINCE 1998 THE NUMBERS TELL THE STORY

MountainCat
08-03-2009, 04:38 PM
This is Sagarin right, for 2008-09?

Are these OOC schedules or does it include conference play?

Whatever system it is, the Pac 10 has 70 freaking % of its teams in the Top 25.

Actually make that 80%

Washington (1)
Oregon St (8)
Stanford (12)
USC (16)
UCLA (18)
Oregon (22)
Washington St. (23)
Cal (24)