College football 2010

[bugo]

One thing I will say about Boise State is they are very fast.  The sad thing is we won't ever know how they would hang with the Big Boys week in and week out.

[Tom]

As a State fan, I hope RichRod stays at UM for a long time then.  
Go Green, Go White!

My wife and I were at that game, and needless to say, the stadium went wild on that last play.  From what I've heard of Coach Dantonio, he's going to be okay, thank God.

How about that fake field goal?  Gutsy, gutsy move.  It literally gave the M-State coach a heart attack.

[Fixed quoting. -S.]

[golden eagle]

That was a thrilling win for Michigan State.

Recapping some the weekend of college football:

-Alabama rallied to beat Arkansas 24-20
-Texas upset at home by UCLA 34-12
-Florida's offense came alive behind six Trey Burton TDs and beat Kentucky 41-7
-Michigan rolls up 65 on Bowling Green, despite losing Denard Robinson in the first quarter
-Oklahoma struggles again against Cincinnati, winning 31-29
-Auburn comes from behind again to win, this time against South Carolina 35-27

[exit322]

The fact is that we DONT KNOW what Boise State could do- they have tried to schedule more difficult opponents in the last three years, but national-title seeking schools don't want to schedule out-of-conference games with us because they can't generate as much revenue playing us as they can a "name" school, and don't want to play a team they may lose to if they're not generating gobs of revenue.

No, teams don't want to pay Boise $1,000,000 for a home game (or some sum for a home & home) when they can find 200 different teams that'll play for well less than that.  Boise is not the poor little pauper they claim to be here.  They could schedule four good nonconference games if they so desired, but they would rather play one and a half (beating Oregon State 37-24 isn't all that impressive...beating Virginia Tech might be).

And if they want to be a consistent BCS title contender, they need to schedule four big time nonconference games every year, because they'll get their three-four cupcakes that everyone else gets in the conference schedule, whichever conference it is.

[74/171FAN]

The fact is that we DONT KNOW what Boise State could do- they have tried to schedule more difficult opponents in the last three years, but national-title seeking schools don't want to schedule out-of-conference games with us because they can't generate as much revenue playing us as they can a "name" school, and don't want to play a team they may lose to if they're not generating gobs of revenue.

No, teams don't want to pay Boise $1,000,000 for a home game (or some sum for a home & home) when they can find 200 different teams that'll play for well less than that.  Boise is not the poor little pauper they claim to be here.  They could schedule four good nonconference games if they so desired, but they would rather play one and a half (beating Oregon State 37-24 isn't all that impressive...beating Virginia Tech might be).

And if they want to be a consistent BCS title contender, they need to schedule four big time nonconference games every year, because they'll get their three-four cupcakes that everyone else gets in the conference schedule, whichever conference it is.

Virginia Tech screwed that up when we lost to JMU.

[corco]

No, teams don't want to pay Boise $1,000,000 for a home game (or some sum for a home & home) when they can find 200 different teams that'll play for well less than that.  Boise is not the poor little pauper they claim to be here.  They could schedule four good nonconference games if they so desired, but they would rather play one and a half (beating Oregon State 37-24 isn't all that impressive...beating Virginia Tech might be).

And if they want to be a consistent BCS title contender, they need to schedule four big time nonconference games every year, because they'll get their three-four cupcakes that everyone else gets in the conference schedule, whichever conference it is.

Wait, so you're saying that Boise State does not deserve to be fairly compensated for playing good teams? That can't be right. Boise State is becoming a program that puts butts in seats. Boise State deserves to be compensated more than an Eastern Michigan or a Southern Mississippi. Maybe not as much as a USC or a Nebraska, but more than the cream-puff money-makers that good schools with tough conference schedules tend to schedule. If other teams don't want to pay up for a team that deserves compensation, that's not Boise State's fault.

Boise State is already at a remarkable disadvantage compared to "name" schools- there can't be any way to justify that they don't deserve the money they are entitled to when they play a big school.
So unless we're operating at a loss (a loss being anything less than fair compensation), we shouldn't get to play tough teams? and by extension, we shouldn't get to play in the title game? How is that even remotely fair.

All the more reason the system is the problem, not Boise State.

Then there's the argument that nobody else has cupcakes in their conference schedule. Ohio State plays Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, and Illinois this year. Those are cupcakes. There's no way around that (and good teams lose to cupcakes! Ohio State lost to PURDUE last year. Purdue!). Ohio State has five of twelve games that be against ranked teams  (Miami FL, Iowa, Wisconsin, Penn State, and Michigan). Boise has three (VT, Oregon State, and yes, Nevada)- it's not some huge disparity.  If you're in the Big East, it's even worse! The SEC is a powerful conference for sure, but the rest of the BCS auto-qualifiers that get equal national championship consideration have series holes in them.

As a fan, it's getting very tiresome that every single time we take the field our credibility is on the line. If Alabama loses to a bad school, it'd be written off as a fluke (unless it happened again) and they'd still be in the title discussion, and probably even in the top 10. If Boise State loses to a bad school, we'll  be lucky if we're still in the top 20, and we'd certainly be out of BCS bowl consideration. People make the strength of schedule argument and it's certainly valid (if a bit overstated*), but it can't be easy taking the field week in and week out knowing that if you so much as don't win by a lot you will no longer be taken seriously. That's an incredibly heavy load to carry. Boise may be playing a slightly easier schedule, but they can't afford to let up at all when they play them. They have to prepare for them just as much as anybody else has to prepare for really hard games, because not only do they have to win every game, they have to DOMINATE every game. That's really, really hard to do- how many schools have dominated every "easy" team they've played the last couple years?

*I do wonder how much of that is east coast bias. Living in the west, a school like South Carolina or Kentucky or Connecticut or Rutgers or Louisville mean nothing to me- they sound like bad schools- those names carry zero weight to me, when in fact they're not all that bad. If you live in the southeast, a Fresno State or Nevada or Stanford or BYU or Air Force may mean nothing to you, when in fact they're not all that bad (well, BYU might this year). Given that the east coast gets most media coverage, I'd wonder what the talent gap between "schools people in the west have never heard of that schools people in the east think are good" and "schools people in the east have never heard of that schools people in the west think are good" actually are. Couple that with the fact that South Carolina and Kentucky are more established than Nevada and Fresno State (and therefore ended up in large conferences a long time ago regardless of actual talent levels) simply as a function of geographic growth (something which has changed over time- there are a lot more people living in Reno and Fresno than there were in the 30s when the SEC was established ), and you wonder what the actual talent gap is. As someone with western tendencies, I'd take Nevada over South Carolina anytime. Somebody in Georgia would probably vehemently disagree and argue that South Carolina is a far better school. I look at next year's Mountain West and I see no way they aren't on the roughly same level as the Big East, even without Utah and BYU. BSU, TCU, and Nevada have all done quite well recently (Nevada fairly quietly), Fresno and Air Force are solid programs, and the rest suck. Big East- WVU, Pitt, Cincy are all good, Louisville/Rutgers/South Florida are all solid, and the rest suck.

[golden eagle]

Boise State deserves to be compensated more than an Eastern Michigan or a Southern Mississippi.

Watch it now! I'm a Southern Miss grad. I do know what you mean though.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Eastern Michigan was paid almost $12,000 per point Ohio State scored on them. I don't know what Marshall and the "Brutus haters" were paid to be roadkill in Columbus this year.

[corco]

Eastern Michigan was paid almost $12,000 per point Ohio State scored on them. I don't know what Marshall and the "Brutus haters" were paid to be roadkill in Columbus this year.

Was that the actual fee structure? Per point? Regardless, it doesn't matter if EMU was paid $10,000,000. Boise State deserves more money than Eastern Michigan does to visit a top-tier school based on added media exposure alone. (I realize OSU-EMU was inexplicably on ABC/ESPN, but an OSU-BSU game on ABC/ESPN would generate a ton more revenue (if only because that matchup would have been on ABC nationwide, not just the Midwest less a giant chunk of Illinois), so BSU should get more money!)

[Alps]

You damn well better believe they weren't paid per point.

[corco]

You damn well better believe they weren't paid per point.

Of course, that would be completely ridiculous. Still, it was phrased as if that were the case.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

You damn well better believe they weren't paid per point.

Of course, that would be completely ridiculous. Still, it was phrased as if that were the case.

Well, if you believe that......go to EMU

[Tom]

Michigan's big game is this weekend, and I'm hearing MSU is favored over U of M.  If MSU wins, this will be historical, as the Spartans have never beaten the Wolverines 3 years in a row.  Go Green!

[Brandon]

Michigan's big game is this weekend, and I'm hearing MSU is favored over U of M.  If MSU wins, this will be historical, as the Spartans have never beaten the Wolverines 3 years in a row.  Go Green!

Not since 1967, but it happened again!

I believe it's Denard "Interception" Robinson now.

Go Green!
Go White!  

Edited to remove excessive number of smileys and sunshine and happiness because there is no happiness when U of M loses

Um, Alps, there is plenty of happiness when MSU beats UofM. 

[bugo]

ALABAMA LOST TO SOUTH CAROLINA! I'm still laughing about that.

And the Razorbacks won, but barely.  They played pretty badly.  They left at least 17 points on the field.  What should have been a blowout was a squaker.

[Bryant5493]

ALABAMA LOST TO SOUTH CAROLINA! I'm still laughing about that.

I'm still laughing about Garcia throwing the ball out of the back of the end zone, for a safety. He had no clue what he was doing with that.


Be well,

Bryant

[agentsteel53]

ALABAMA LOST TO SOUTH CAROLINA!

there is a particular sign collector that I just should not talk to in the next few days.  Huge Alabama fan!

(it'll be okay, Robert.  You did, after all, win the national championship last year!)

[bugo]

ALABAMA LOST TO SOUTH CAROLINA! I'm still laughing about that.

I'm still laughing about Garcia throwing the ball out of the back of the end zone, for a safety. He had no clue what he was doing with that.

Why didn't he just fall on the ball?  He was on like the 4 yard line when he did that.  Could have ended up costing them the game.

[bugo]

ALABAMA LOST TO SOUTH CAROLINA!

(it'll be okay, Robert.  You did, after all, win the national championship last year!)

Every time I hear an Alabama fan brag about all their national championships, I think of this billboard:


Still funny after all these years.

[Scott5114]

I wish they would use more comprehensible abbreviations on the scoreboards on college football. Half the time I don't know who's playing, and unlike professional sports I can't make a guess based on the uniforms, since there's only like 25 professional teams, all of which have familiar names, whereas there are approximately six colleges for each resident of the US. Things on the screen like "ULAF" or "UGH" doesn't really help me out much. Yes, I know it's a university, but they all are, so the U is just wasting my time...

[mightyace]

^^^

Agreed, everyone knows that USC stands for the Trojans of SoCal.

Except for those in SEC country who have the audacity to assign those initials to University of South Carolina!  

[Scott5114]

See, why can't they put "S. Cal" and "S.C."? Makes sense. I know some networks will show OU and OSU as "Okla." and "Okla. St." so...

[agentsteel53]

there are way too many college football teams.  well, rather, there are way too many violations of divisions and strength of schedule.  what kind of morons want to see the University of Critical Manliness beat up Patsy A&H&T&S to the tune of 63-3?  Oh, right, the boosters, who will pay to fly in a team, write them a check, and kick their ass soundly.

the most satisfying college football game I've ever seen is 1-AA paid rollover Appalachian State knocking off Big Bad Michigan in 2007.  Oh, they were paid to fold?  Looks like someone never got the memo.

College football is the ultimate in hypocrisy on so many levels.  Just play a schedule that makes sense... oh, and don't act so surprised when your athletes find compensation proportionate to your services.

the NCAA needs to die in a fire.  More generally, "amateurism" (with all the perverse incentives it implies) needs to die in a fire.  If you can perform a service with greater skill than your competitor, it is not a crime that you should be paid for it.

[Bryant5493]

ALABAMA LOST TO SOUTH CAROLINA! I'm still laughing about that.

I'm still laughing about Garcia throwing the ball out of the back of the end zone, for a safety. He had no clue what he was doing with that.

Why didn't he just fall on the ball?  He was on like the 4 yard line when he did that.  Could have ended up costing them the game.

Exactly. At that point, I thought that was going to be the "back-breaker," if you will.


Be well,

Bryant

[Scott5114]

there are way too many college football teams.  well, rather, there are way too many violations of divisions and strength of schedule.  what kind of morons want to see the University of Critical Manliness beat up Patsy A&H&T&S to the tune of 63-3?  Oh, right, the boosters, who will pay to fly in a team, write them a check, and kick their ass soundly.

the most satisfying college football game I've ever seen is 1-AA paid rollover Appalachian State knocking off Big Bad Michigan in 2007.  Oh, they were paid to fold?  Looks like someone never got the memo.

College football is the ultimate in hypocrisy on so many levels.  Just play a schedule that makes sense... oh, and don't act so surprised when your athletes find compensation proportionate to your services.

the NCAA needs to die in a fire.  More generally, "amateurism" (with all the perverse incentives it implies) needs to die in a fire.  If you can perform a service with greater skill than your competitor, it is not a crime that you should be paid for it.

I agree with you 100%. The NCAA acts like it so dearly wants to be some sort of minor league to the NFL, and turns around and punishes people for not being amateur enough. What? If you're going to wheel and deal and make shady TV deals and conference bullshit, then you've already let money into the game. It's too late to pretend otherwise. Then you have the added BCS bullshit on top of that. Just have a playoff, the same way HS football below you and NFL above you do. Oh, what's that, you're worried about affecting the students? Hmm. Well, it's a good thing you weren't affecting them in any way for the rest of the season! Wait, you were? Oh.

Frankly, I would be happiest if football (and sports in general) were completely divorced from the educational system. It is so at odds from the core goals of these institutions (to impart knowledge and skills) and adds a bunch of idiotic distractions on top of it (it promotes school spirit? my learning institution is better than your learning institution? what the hell?) as well as financial obligations (dunno about other states, but here schools are perpetually cash-strapped) that I really don't see why they're still ganged together as if they were relevant to one another. I think this applies at all levels, high school, college, elementary, whatever.