2010 NCAA Football Thread

[Viper]

My personal rule of thumb for the bowls is what I call the "8-3 rule": a minimum of eight wins and no more than three losses. If one or both teams in a bowl game don't meet this standard, they shouldn't be in a bowl in the first place and I won't reward the bowls' promoting such mediocre matchups by contributing to their TV viewership.

As it turns out, only eight of the 35 bowl games have both teams satisfy to the 8-3 rule: Las Vegas, Hawaii, Capital One, Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton and BCS.

Come to think of it, eight bowls seems like just the right number, though even the Capital One Bowl I may not watch, because it conflicts with the NHL Winter Classic.

[Lights Out]

All that said (and I know the guy just signed an extension, but still)...I would not be one bit surprised if UF goes after Chris Peterson with the fierceness.

But will they go after Chris Petersen?

Also, if his program at Boise State is as sucky and overrated as they've been portrayed in this thread, why do you all want him to go to an AQ school so badly?

[dfwabel]

My personal rule of thumb for the bowls is what I call the "8-3 rule": a minimum of eight wins and no more than three losses. If one or both teams in a bowl game don't meet this standard, they shouldn't be in a bowl in the first place and I won't reward the bowls' promoting such mediocre matchups by contributing to their TV viewership.

As it turns out, only eight of the 35 bowl games have both teams satisfy to the 8-3 rule: Las Vegas, Hawaii, Capital One, Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton and BCS.

Come to think of it, eight bowls seems like just the right number, though even the Capital One Bowl I may not watch, because it conflicts with the NHL Winter Classic.

All FBS schools now play a 12-game schedule, so what occurs to an 8-4 team since they have more losses? Should they be in a bowl?

[See Red]

All that said (and I know the guy just signed an extension, but still)...I would not be one bit surprised if UF goes after Chris Peterson with the fierceness.

But will they go after Chris Petersen?

Also, if his program at Boise State is as sucky and overrated as they've been portrayed in this thread, why do you all want him to go to an AQ school so badly?

You're starting to reach the willmorris level of annoying.

Quite an accomplishment.

[dfwabel]

All that said (and I know the guy just signed an extension, but still)...I would not be one bit surprised if UF goes after Chris Peterson with the fierceness.

But will they go after Chris Petersen?

Also, if his program at Boise State is as sucky and overrated as they've been portrayed in this thread, why do you all want him to go to an AQ school so badly?

You're starting to reach the willmorris level of annoying.

Quite an accomplishment.

"willmorris" and the hyperbole is like a performance, just like a morning radio host to me. I think "LightsOut" is much more serious in stating their opinion.

[Cola]

My personal rule of thumb for the bowls is what I call the "8-3 rule": a minimum of eight wins and no more than three losses. If one or both teams in a bowl game don't meet this standard, they shouldn't be in a bowl in the first place and I won't reward the bowls' promoting such mediocre matchups by contributing to their TV viewership.

As it turns out, only eight of the 35 bowl games have both teams satisfy to the 8-3 rule: Las Vegas, Hawaii, Capital One, Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton and BCS.

Come to think of it, eight bowls seems like just the right number, though even the Capital One Bowl I may not watch, because it conflicts with the NHL Winter Classic.

All FBS schools now play a 12-game schedule, so what occurs to an 8-4 team since they have more losses? Should they be in a bowl?

Not only that, but it's hard to label a team "more worthy" after finishing 9-3 in a conference with no championship game...over the team that played an extra pivotal game and accrued a loss, finishing 9-4.

I say 8 wins, in most cases, is considered successful and deserving of postseason play. I don't think 6-6 should get you there and it wouldn't if the business side of sports didn't exist.

[oddball]

My personal rule of thumb for the bowls is what I call the "8-3 rule": a minimum of eight wins and no more than three losses. If one or both teams in a bowl game don't meet this standard, they shouldn't be in a bowl in the first place and I won't reward the bowls' promoting such mediocre matchups by contributing to their TV viewership.

As it turns out, only eight of the 35 bowl games have both teams satisfy to the 8-3 rule: Las Vegas, Hawaii, Capital One, Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton and BCS.

Come to think of it, eight bowls seems like just the right number, though even the Capital One Bowl I may not watch, because it conflicts with the NHL Winter Classic.

I've always believed that only teams that have 7 wins should go to bowls. I've believed that even when there were 11 games. If you did that now, there'd be 56 teams eligible and that would make 28 bowl games. But here's the trick to what would make things better in college football, you have to play all your games against Division I (or whatever they call it) opponents. Any time you play against a lower division opponent, the game would not count for wins on your record. Do that, and these big time teams have less "cream puffs". Well at least Ohio State could still schedule it's cream puffs of Akron, Ohio, Toledo, etc. and they would still count. I wonder how many teams would not be in a bowl game if they didn't get free wins against lower division opponents. There are enough cream puffs, like Michigan, UCLA, and Washington State that you don't have to schedule Portland State, Mississippi Valley State, and North Dakota State.

[tBBP]

My personal rule of thumb for the bowls is what I call the "8-3 rule": a minimum of eight wins and no more than three losses. If one or both teams in a bowl game don't meet this standard, they shouldn't be in a bowl in the first place and I won't reward the bowls' promoting such mediocre matchups by contributing to their TV viewership.

As it turns out, only eight of the 35 bowl games have both teams satisfy to the 8-3 rule: Las Vegas, Hawaii, Capital One, Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton and BCS.

Come to think of it, eight bowls seems like just the right number, though even the Capital One Bowl I may not watch, because it conflicts with the NHL Winter Classic.

I've always believed that only teams that have 7 wins should go to bowls. I've believed that even when there were 11 games. If you did that now, there'd be 56 teams eligible and that would make 28 bowl games. But here's the trick to what would make things better in college football, you have to play all your games against Division I (or whatever they call it) opponents. Any time you play against a lower division opponent, the game would not count for wins on your record. Do that, and these big time teams have less "cream puffs". Well at least Ohio State could still schedule it's cream puffs of Akron, Ohio, Toledo, etc. and they would still count. I wonder how many teams would not be in a bowl game if they didn't get free wins against lower division opponents. There are enough cream puffs, like Michigan, UCLA, and Washington State that you don't have to schedule Portland State, Mississippi Valley State, and North Dakota State.

Stick the words "bowl-eligible" in there before the word "wins" and I might be on board with ya.

Here's the thing about this, though, and let's be frank: some of these lower-level schools damn-near fund their whole institutions by volunteering to play the part of the big boys' bitches for a weekend, so I don't think we'll ever completely see the big boys stop scheduling "cupcakes" (if not the other way around). But, like you/I said, if something like that were to ever go through (not that I care, because I don't), the way I'd think it should probably work is wins against non-FBS competition wouldn't count in the FBS bowl-eligible picture.

And plus...some of these little dogs occasionally have their day in the sun too, as Jacksonville State and James Madison of this season--and Appalachian State back in '07--can attest to. (And now that I've mentioned that, I think I might have just stumbled onto a real slippery slope: if wins against non-FBS teams wouldn't count towards bowl eligibility, would/should losses against the same then count against it? Things that make you go "hmmm"...)

[infrared41]

All that said (and I know the guy just signed an extension, but still)...I would not be one bit surprised if UF goes after Chris Peterson with the fierceness.

But will they go after Chris Petersen?

Also, if his program at Boise State is as sucky and overrated as they've been portrayed in this thread, why do you all want him to go to an AQ school so badly?

Oh please. Overreact much? No one here is saying Boise State sucks. The argument against Boise State all along has been over their conference schedule. It was weak and filled with cupcakes and we all know it. Any other "Boise bashing" is the direct result of your insufferable homerism and the fact that you whine like a little bitch the minute someone dares to question the mighty Broncos. You made your bed dude. How about you shut up and sleep in it?

Also, the last I checked, no one here is clamoring for Chris Petersen to go anywhere. There is one reason why his name comes up in relation to these openings; he's a very successful mid-major coach and that type of coach is usually an attractive candidate when a gig at a "name" school pops up. It's not like your beloved coach Petersen would be the first mid-major coach to leave for greener pastures. Do the names Urban Meyer or Nick Saban (or countless others) ring a bell?

[Lights Out]

In other news, this just reeks of collusion.

[Kevin W.]

I'm no law expert or anything, but I'm pretty sure that's an antitrust violation.

[HedleyLamarr]

In other news, this just reeks of collusion.

It also reeks of the honest truth.

Spin it any way you want, the non-BCS conferences aren't bringing much to the table, other than maybe 1-2 good football teams.

It's not about money. It's all about power, and these BCS conference commissioners and school presidents don't want to relinquish any of those powers.

How many concessions have the non-BCS conferences made since the inception of the BCS?

[sacker12]

I doubt Petersen will leave Boise. If he does, I wouldn't be shocked if he goes the way of Dirk Koetter and Dan Hawkins, in which he does poorly at the next school. The only former Boise coach to achieve some kind of success after leaving was Houston Nutt.

[Kevin W.]

In other news, this just reeks of collusion.

It also reeks of the honest truth.

Spin it any way you want, the non-BCS conferences aren't bringing much to the table, other than maybe 1-2 good football teams.

It's not about money. It's all about power, and these BCS conference commissioners and school presidents don't want to relinquish any of those powers.

How many concessions have the non-BCS conferences made since the inception of the BCS?

What the hell kinds of concessions can they make? The BCS conferences have everything.

[HedleyLamarr]

What the hell kinds of concessions can they make? The BCS conferences have everything.

Sounds like a good enough reason for the non-BCS teams to, as the kids like to say, "Shut the up", don't you think?

They should be wildly happy with what they've got. If they go back to the old system, they won't be anywhere near the prestigious bowl games. If they go to any sort of playoff, the small schools will starve to death because the NCAA will take over the whole process...including scheduling games that small schools used to profit from.

[infrared41]

In other news, this just reeks of collusion.

Add it to your lawsuit.

[Lights Out]

How many concessions have the non-BCS conferences made since the inception of the BCS?

Just the fact that they're non-AQ conferences alone is a pretty major concession (and a forced concession). They also have been forced to concede in recruiting and football budgets because schools in non-AQ conferences simply don't make as much as AQ schools and don't have automatic bids. None of these concessions are fair, by the way, and smack of collusion by the AQ conferences.

The AQ/non-AQ thing is absurd. Could you imagine the NFL holding the NFC West to impossibly-high standards just to have a chance of sending a playoff team or two? Why do we accept this bullcrap in college football?

[dfwabel]

How many concessions have the non-BCS conferences made since the inception of the BCS?

Just the fact that they're non-AQ conferences alone is a pretty major concession (and a forced concession). They also have been forced to concede in recruiting and football budgets because schools in non-AQ conferences simply don't make as much as AQ schools and don't have automatic bids. None of these concessions are fair, by the way, and smack of collusion by the AQ conferences.

The AQ/non-AQ thing is absurd. Could you imagine the NFL holding the NFC West to impossibly-high standards just to have a chance of sending a playoff team or two? Why do we accept this bullcrap in college football?

The fact that they are non-AQ has little to do with how much fund-raising a school can do in a given year, how they price their tickets, or how much money their TV contract is worth due to their conference. Have those in advancement work harder, then your budget will have more money. As a whole, they get less TV money since the public does not want to watch them.

TCU was 12th in all FBS schools in terms of budget. There are three C-USA schools who outspend teams in both the Pac-12 and ACC.

NCAA FBS Football Budgets

[Lights Out]

TCU is also in one of the country's biggest media markets - Dallas/Fort Worth (DMA #5), which helps their ratings and their appeal. They're also now moving up to an AQ conference anyway so it's basically a moot point. Comparable schools like Boise State (DMA #113), Utah (DMA #32), and BYU (considered part of the Salt Lake City market, DMA #32) do not have the luxury of a huge media market for local ratings revenue.

Also, non-AQ schools are generally smaller schools. Smaller schools means less seats at the stadium. Less seats mean less tickets sold, and less tickets sold means less money being taken in by the athletic department. This puts small non-AQ schools at a disadvantage in spending when compared to large schools. Every college in America isn't going to be the size of an Ohio State or Alabama, but that doesn't make the small colleges somehow worse at football or undeserving of a chance at a national title. Small colleges certainly shouldn't be told to shut up and accept discrimination.

[RyanB06]

Also, non-AQ schools are generally smaller schools. Smaller schools means less seats at the stadium. Less seats mean less tickets sold, and less tickets sold means less money being taken in by the athletic department. This puts small non-AQ schools at a disadvantage in spending when compared to large schools. Every college in America isn't going to be the size of an Ohio State or Alabama, but that doesn't make the small colleges somehow worse at football or undeserving of a chance at a national title. Small colleges certainly shouldn't be told to shut up and accept discrimination.

Aside from Air Force (a military academy) and TCU (which is leaving anyway), none of the Mountain West schools have an enrollment under 12,000. (source) And all of those are bigger (save Wyoming, Boise, and Nevada) than AQ "big" school UConn (20,000 undergrads).

Oh, and the smallest stadium in the MWC is just a hair under 30,000 (Nevada again) and has five stadiums over 40,000.

Pesky things, these facts are.