BCS conference teams should play other BCS conference teams
Challenge series would level playing field: Big 12 would battle ACC, SEC teams (Berry Tramel, Daily Oklahoman)
In the 1970s, few major schools dared play an inferior opponent. In the 2000s, few major schools dare not.
In 2006, every BCS conference is playing less than 50 percent of its non-league games against lower-status opponents.
In 2006, nine of the 65 schools in the six BCS leagues are playing NO foes from fellow power conference. Only one team, USC bless its soul, is playing ONLY BCS-league opponents.
The Big 12 is the worst offender, playing only 23 percent (11 of 48) of its non-conference games against fellow BCS schools. The SEC is at 29 percent, the ACC at 31 percent, the Big 10 at 32 percent, the Pac-10 at 43 percent and the Big East at 45 percent.
The culture must change. We must get back to competitive games and level playing fields.
And here's my idea to kick off such a massive change: a Big 12/ACC/SEC challenge series.
We have these series in basketball; they are needed in football. The Big 12, the Southeastern Conference and the Atlantic Coast Conference are obvious picks for the challenge because of their similarities: each has 12 teams, each has a league title game.
This makes so much sense for fans that I can't imagine university ADs or conference commissioners will ever get on board.
The Big 12's scheduling of so many weaklings is embarrassing, though. It's about time some of the conference beat writers start pointing that out to people.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 10/04/06 08:48 | Big 12 Football | Technorati
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
TrackBack
There are currently no trackbacks for this item.
Incoming trackback pings have been disabled because of abusive spammers. Technorati is now used to track cross-blog conversation.
Comments
Not only university ADs and conference commissioners, but if you're going to introduce logic and good sense into the discussion, then the NCAA itself will try and find a way run this idea into the ground as well.
I have no problem with playing non-BCS schools. I think the mid-majors should at least get a shot at BCS bowls. They've shown they can beat BCS schools on a somewhat semi-regular basis.
I love the idea of a challenge series, though. The atmosphere of the Ohio State game was absolutely electric in this town. Knowing you'd have that every year, or every other year, would be amazing. I still like the idea of another conference game, too. We had the Murderer's Row of Rice, North Texas, and Sam Houston State. If you have to have a twelfth game, drop another conference game in there with the challenge game. Like I said earlier, I think it's criminal that OU doesn't play Nebraska every year. This challenge series would be a way to maybe work out a semi-regular renewal of the Texas-Arkansas series also.
Sam Houston State? I guess Westlake already had a game that week.
Posted by another precinct chair @ 14:24 on 10/04/06
There is a huge difference between playing non-BCS Division I-A schools and Division I-AA schools.
Plenty of non-BCS teams from Division I-A conferences are serious teams that can play with anyone. Ask Oregon or USC how much they like playing Fresno State. There aren't many teams out there who relish a trip to Fresno, Boise, or Fort Worth these days.
The real problem is when teams schedule Division I-AA schools. There's not a single Division I-AA school that can come close to running with the big boys whereas plenty of non-BCS Division I-A schools can. The current top 5 ranked Division I-AA schools are:
1 UNH (81)
2 Appalachian State
3 Furman
4 Montana
5 Cal Poly
Yeah, who cares.
The problem with your proposal is that it would kill any chance for non-BCS Division I-A schools to ever succeed. What hope does a Boise State or TCU have of ever breaking into the big time if they are prohibited from playing against BCS teams?
A better solution would be to prohibit teams from counting wins against I-AA teams on their record. If Texas wants to play Sam Houston State, fine, make it a scrimmage but it won't count as a win. But if they want to play TCU then more power to them. It would be a more interesting game than Texas-Baylor. Or, even more drastic. Have the BCS formula penalize teams for playing I-AA teams.
In the end, most of this problem goes away with a proper playoff system. With a 16 team playoff the rankings have far less meaning at the end of the season.
Posted by Kent @ 15:21 on 10/04/06
Oh, and let's talk about how Notre Dame can be considered a serious team when the middle of its schedule looks like this:
09/23 at Mich St
09/30 Purdue
10/07 Stanford
10/21 UCLA
10/28 at Navy
11/04 UNC
11/11 at Air Force
11/18 Army
Any team that schedules all 3 service academies in one year ought to be deducted BCS points just for that.
Posted by Kent @ 15:25 on 10/04/06
The problem with your proposal is that it would kill any chance for non-BCS Division I-A schools to ever succeed. What hope does a Boise State or TCU have of ever breaking into the big time if they are prohibited from playing against BCS teams?
It's not my proposal, but Daily Oklahoman columnist Berry Tramel's.
And I don't think his proposal is as you've portrayed it.
He's not saying that BCS conference schools will ONLY play BCS conference schools. Rather, he's saying that SOMETHING needs to be done to stop this practice of BCS conference schools scheduling so many weaklings (I-AA, which is shameful, but also I-A weaklings) and rarely scheduling traditional powers from other conferences.
At OU, Bob Stoops/Joe Castliglione have long held the philosophy that they should be scheduling one "marquee" game (a good BCS conference foe), one non-BCS conference team that's still a good matchup (say, TCU last year), and a gimme. Their preference is no I-AA teams, which they barely avoided with the addition of Midd Tenn St as their fourth game this year. I like their philosophy a lot. I like that Mack Brown/DeLoss Dodds finally seem open to playing some powers, after years of refusing to play non-conference teams of the caliber of an Ohio State. I like Nebraska taking on USC this year, although Nebraska's schedule has been kind of pitiful in recent years.
But Tramel is right. Those marquee matchups used to be more regular. I'd like to see them come back a little more.
Posted by Kevin @ 15:32 on 10/04/06
Oh, and let's talk about how Notre Dame can be considered a serious team
Ha, good point!
NBC says they're "serious" though. And who can argue with a team with its own major network? *sigh*
Posted by Kevin @ 15:34 on 10/04/06
You're right. I misunderstood it by reading too fast. In fact, I'm not sure I still understand how a 3-conference challenge series would work. Lay it out for me. Would they all play each other during the same week? 12 games of Big-12/SEC matchups during the same week? I like that idea.
As a Pac-10 fan I have seen a whole lot of Pac-10 Big-10 non-conference games over the years. Until the BCS destroyed the traditional Rose Bowl lineup, those conferences frequently played each other in non-conference play. Washington and Michigan used to play a lot.
Too bad we can't run football like European soccer leagues are run where there is mobility between the division levels based on performance and also penalties. If you're Boise State or TCU you get promoted up to the PAC-10 and Big 12, respectively and Stanford and Baylor get dropped down to the WAC and Mountain West. When Alabama gets major sanctions against it the school drops down to Division I-AA Southern Conference to play against Furman and Georgia Southern. Just like when the Italian Premier League teams were demoted for cheating. Of course that could never happen because conferences are for all sports, not just football. But it would be fun to contemplate the anguish and glory each year as the most pathetic BCS teams are dropped out of their conferences and the most deserving non-BCS teams are added in.
Still, this all sorts out so well with a decent playoff series in which the first round or two are home games for the top seeded teams and then the final round games are in traditional bowl cities.
Posted by Kent @ 16:03 on 10/04/06
I think it could work by leaving an open date every year, and 1 or 2 years ahead of time (probably 2 for logistics' sake), scheduling the Big 12's #1 finisher from the year before vs the ACC's #2 while the SEC's #1 plays the Big 12's #2, etc. Somebody smarter then me at that kind of math would have to figure the exact kind of round robin configuration. The same week would be cool. I'm sure TV would like the idea; they certainly do for the basketball challenges.
On a somewhat unrelated note, I just found out this morning that the NCAA is a tax-exempt organization. I suppose it makes sense in a perverse kind of way, but it still annoys me that an oganization that makes billions in TV rights fees doesn't pay any taxes
Posted by another precinct chair @ 14:00 on 10/05/06
Add Comments
While it is not required, creating an account for commenting provides a number of benefits (such as comment editing and bypassing the captcha challenge). You may log in to your account here.
No flames or impolite behavior. Any questions, see the site policies. Older posts are moderated (because of spammers), so if your post does not appear immediately, that could be why.
HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.
[b]text[/b] will produce bold text. [i]text[/i] will produce italicized text.
Comments for this post must be approved before being published. Thank you!
BLOG
» Create Account
» Log In
DISCLAIMER
Content and design copyright © 1997-2008, Kevin Whited.
Posts represent the views of Kevin Whited (and occasional guest bloggers) only, and do not necessarily reflect the views of employers, family, friends, or significant others.