Did the media get ND in a BCS Bowl?

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:11 pm

I don't think they are. I think most of the teams are seeing the slot and thinking Temple or MAC opponent. It's certainly always a temptation with 100K+ stadiums.

Sky · Post by **Sky** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:33 pm

TiC, I am not sure who you are talking to or what they are thinking---while the Big10 Championship is great, it doesn't compare to the NC. Think about your reference. OSU won the NC in 02 but shared the Big10 title. I could care less about the conference title in that case.

Year to year, if we are out of the NC picture (or even a long shot), the conference title is a nice consolation prize, but we would rather win the NC, period.

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:48 pm

Terry the other thing you are missing...in order to even think about getting to the NC you have to win or share a Big 10 title at this point...so I am not so sure having a Big 10 champsionship as one of your goals is not so bad...I mean you win the Big 10 and perhaps you play for the MNC...ala tOSU in 2002...wasn't tOSU in 1968 undisputed MNC's???

Shawn Marion · Post by **Shawn Marion** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:07 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I've heard from a number of Big Ten fans in here that in the Big Ten, winning the Big Ten championship is more important than winning the national championship.

This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Whoever said that deserves to be punched in the throat.

It makes sense to me if it came from Iowa or MSU fan though, realistic expectations and all.

Spinach Genie · Post by **Spinach Genie** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:09 pm

Everyone should strive to be the best, but at least the conference championships are legitimately recognized...no shame in taking pride in them, I'd say.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:13 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I've heard from a number of Big Ten fans in here that in the Big Ten, winning the Big Ten championship is more important than winning the national championship.

Wow. Are you sure of that?

However, if conference play is so all-consuming to Big 10 fans that they strive for that over a MNC, I say rack that enthusiasm.

Terry in Crapchester · Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:51 pm

I have seen that on this board. Exactly who said it escapes me at the moment.

And I get the point that you have to win the Big Ten to contend for the national championship in the first place. But that's not always the case -- I seem to recall Oklahoma playing for the national championship in '03 despite not winning the Big 12, or at least not winning the Big 12's conference championship game. Not saying for sure that'll happen to a Big Ten team, but never say never.

If college football ever gets a legitimate playoff, winning a conference championship won't be a necessary prerequisite to winning a national championship.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:57 pm

...unless you want to use a CCG as a stage of the playoffs.

Terry in Crapchester · Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:13 pm

PSUFAN wrote:...unless you want to use a CCG as a stage of the playoffs.

A few problems with that:

1. The NCAA doesn't allow conferences to play a conference championship game unless the conference has a minimum of 12 teams and is split into two divisions. You'd be forcing conferences to expand to 12 teams or forgo inclusion in a playoff, or forcing the NCAA to change its rules, and the latter is extremely unlikely.

2. Notre Dame. We can debate whether Notre Dame should join a conference from now until the cows come home. But the more practical question is, will Notre Dame join a conference, and the only reasonably objective answer to that, at least at this point, appears to be no, or at least, not in the foreseeable future. If ND continues its ascension under Weis and you leave ND out of a playoff picture, you have a tainted championship.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:16 pm

You'd be forcing conferences to expand to 12 teams or forgo inclusion in a playoff, or forcing the NCAA to change its rules

Since we're talking about our druthers, those things are exactly what I'd do.

Shawn Marion · Post by **Shawn Marion** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:18 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:1. The NCAA doesn't allow conferences to play a conference championship game unless the conference has a minimum of 12 teams and is split into two divisions. You'd be forcing conferences to expand to 12 teams or forgo inclusion in a playoff, or forcing the NCAA to change its rules, and the latter is extremely unlikely.

I just want to point out that if you are going to ponder the NCAA going to a playoff, then it would also be okay to ponder them relaxing the 12 team requirement for a CCG.

WolverineSteve · Post by **WolverineSteve** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:22 pm

TiC,
Bo Schembechler used to say that winning the Big 10 and going to Pasedena was the teams main objective. The thought was that these were things within the control of the program. NC's would iron themselves out based how other teams performed.

This has long been an outdated philosophy however. If UM loses a non-conf. game early (like it has for several years in a row now) the goal shifts into winning the Big10 and getting the BCS bid and rooting for all undefeateds to lose.

But even if this was the so-called mindset of the Big10 teams, why would ND have to follow suit? I think the reality of the situation is obviously money. Moreover I think ND would soon figure out that it aint easy being a fish in a much bigger pond (ask Penn State). Say what you will about the strength of the conf., when you play eachother year in and year out, the potential for an upset is greater.

Or you can keep playing Navy :wink:

Shawn Marion · Post by **Shawn Marion** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:29 pm

WolverineSteve wrote:Moreover I think ND would soon figure out that it aint easy being a fish in a much bigger pond (ask Penn State).

I think this is unfair.

Penn State did very well in the Big Ten while Paterno was still alive, it wasn't until after his death that Penn State suffered.

Now that they have taken the coaching away from the dead guy and given it to the coordinators Penn State is once again winning.

Terry in Crapchester · Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:48 pm

WolverineSteve wrote:TiC,
Bo Schembechler used to say that winning the Big 10 and going to Pasedena was the teams main objective. The thought was that these were things within the control of the program. NC's would iron themselves out based how other teams performed.

This has long been an outdated philosophy however. If UM loses a non-conf. game early (like it has for several years in a row now) the goal shifts into winning the Big10 and getting the BCS bid and rooting for all undefeateds to lose.

Ahhh, now I get it. Thanks for the correction, and sorry for the misunderstanding. Having said that, there are still plenty of reasons, referenced in my post previous to that one, why ND wouldn't/shouldn't join the Big Ten.

But even if this was the so-called mindset of the Big10 teams, why would ND have to follow suit? I think the reality of the situation is obviously money. Moreover I think ND would soon figure out that it aint easy being a fish in a much bigger pond (ask Penn State). Say what you will about the strength of the conf., when you play eachother year in and year out, the potential for an upset is greater.

Not disputing that, but . . .

Or you can keep playing Navy :wink:

You do know why we play Navy, don't you?

And for that matter, while ND's schedule was relatively weak this year, by ND's standards, that was due to the fact that no less than seven of the schools on ND's schedule had down years this year by the standards of those schools (Michigan, Michigan State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Syracuse, Tennessee, Washington). Certainly, that's not going to be the case every year.

On a year in/year out basis, ND's schedule wouldn't be any more difficult if we were to join the Big Ten than it is currently.

WolverineSteve · Post by **WolverineSteve** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:01 pm

Yes I know the Navy deal, hence the

, maybe I should've went with a :wink: .

I'll have to agree that ND's schedule looked quite a bit more impressive on paper than on the field this year. My point about joining a conference was that when you play teams year after year the chance for the lesser program to win increases. I think ND would do well to win 1 out of 5 Big10 titles, instead they choose to stay indie hog the cash and cherry pick their schedule. I'm not saying I blame them, all that dough would be tough to leave.

Sky · Post by **Sky** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:16 pm

OK, I'll ask the question, why do you play Navy?

But on that note, this is pretty interesting:

Navy vs Notre Dame in Dublin Ireland

I wouldn't think it would be that big of a draw but it did OK in 1996.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:27 pm

Sky wrote:OK, I'll ask the question, why do you play Navy?

But on that note, this is pretty interesting:

Navy vs Notre Dame in Dublin Ireland

I wouldn't think it would be that big of a draw but it did OK in 1996.

Very long story short, they kept Notre Dame open during WWII. Most of the draft eligible men were fighting (ND was an all male school at the time) and ND admissions fell to very low levels. ND was threatened with the possibility of closing the school. The Naval Academey stepped in and established a base on the ND campus, bringing in money for ND during the war. ND repays them by keeping them on the schedule, giving them a large(r) chunk of the gate when they are at ND, and giving them the home chunk when they play Navy on a neutral site. ND has the policy that they will never end the series with Navy. If Navy wants to end it, so be it. But ND will continue to repay them each and every year. And they will likely get an easy victory also.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:30 pm

Under the current BCS and Big 10 systems it's pretty much impossible for a Big 10 team to win the national title without having already won at least a share of the conference title so it's a non sequitur.

There's no way for Big 10 Fan to prioritize a conference title over a national title since the former is necessary for the latter.

Sky · Post by **Sky** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:36 pm

Killian wrote: But ND will continue to repay them each and every year.

I like that, "repay" them each year. Is $ worth 41 ass-whuppings in a row?

Really though, that is a class act on both sides.

WolverineSteve · Post by **WolverineSteve** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:43 pm

It's easy for ND to be loyal to the tune of 41 straight. Stay brave Irish.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:52 pm

WolverineSteve wrote:It's easy for ND to be loyal to the tune of 41 straight. Stay brave Irish.

Either that, or we could pick some directional school (or 3) to kick the shit out of every year.

WolverineSteve · Post by **WolverineSteve** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:08 pm

pick your poison.

We're just doing it to get some serious scratch to the EMU's of the world. They count on the gate reciepts from the Bighouse as a major chunk of their athletic budget.

Does it sound any more legit coming from another school?

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:15 pm

I have no problem with it. As long as teams don't play D-1AA teams, I have no problem with it. In the next few years we'll pick up Duke and Army. Cupcakes are cupcakes.

Spinach Genie · Post by **Spinach Genie** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:17 pm

I think you can blame title 9 for the sudden upswing in low-totem OOC games of late. A lot of schools, like here in Alabama, have had all funds going to athletics cut from the state level. Being that in many states basketball and baseball aren't that big of a money-generating institution, the football programs fund their entire ahtletic budget...women's sports included...off football. The number of schools who are willing to play a one-away these days is shrinking quickly and competition to maximize home games is increasing. I know Auburn had at least two mid-tier opponents opt out of their scheduled games with Auburn for a higher payday somewhere else. It's becoming a story elsewhere too. All together, I'd say Navy is a valuable date for the dome every year.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:20 pm

Spinach Genie wrote:I think you can blame title 9 for the sudden upswing in low-totem OOC games of late. A lot of schools, like here in Alabama, have had all funds going to athletics cut from the state level. Being that in many states basketball and baseball aren't that big of a money-generating institution, the football programs fund their entire ahtletic budget...women's sports included...off football. The number of schools who are willing to play a one-away these days is shrinking quickly and competition to maximize home games is increasing. I know Auburn had at least two mid-tier opponents opt out of their scheduled games with Auburn for a higher payday somewhere else. It's becoming a story elsewhere too. All together, I'd say Navy is a valuable date for the dome every year.

Don't even get me started on Title IX. What a complete load of horseshit that football is included. But I agree with your points.

Terry in Crapchester · Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:08 pm

WolverineSteve wrote:Yes I know the Navy deal, hence the , maybe I should've went with a :wink: .

I'll have to agree that ND's schedule looked quite a bit more impressive on paper than on the field this year. My point about joining a conference was that when you play teams year after year the chance for the lesser program to win increases. I think ND would do well to win 1 out of 5 Big10 titles, instead they choose to stay indie hog the cash and cherry pick their schedule. I'm not saying I blame them, all that dough would be tough to leave.

But we don't "cherry pick" our schedule at all.

We have eight permanent/semi-permanent opponents (BC, Michigan, Michigan State, Navy, Purdue, Pitt, Stanford, USC). That's as permanent a schedule as you'll find in any conference. And while the actual membership of those permanent/semi-permanet opponents changes from time to time, the fact that we always have 7-8 permanent/semi-permanent opponents does not.

And of those eight teams, two (Michigan and USC) are perennial national powers, and five (BC, Michigan State, Purdue, Pitt, Stanford) are tough/not tough to varying degrees from year to year, although no one would confuse any of them with some of the OOC pushovers that many other schools play. That only leaves Navy, and even there, Navy is going to a bowl game for the third consecutive year, the first time in history it has ever done that (although, in fairness, Navy benefitted from having a lot of cupcakes on their schedule this year).

Terry in Crapchester · Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:09 pm

Killian wrote:I have no problem with it. As long as teams don't play D-1AA teams, I have no problem with it. In the next few years we'll pick up Duke and Army. Cupcakes are cupcakes.

Are we picking up Duke? I haven't seen them on any upcoming schedules. I have seen North Carolina on a few upcoming schedules, but that's not nearly the same as scheduling Duke in football.

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:25 pm

^^^^

you should pick up tOSU again...I am sure we would love to continue the winning streak! :D

tOSU does the same thing with MAC schools...everyone wants to bitch and moan about playing a MAC school but a school like Ohio U or something that can get a guaranteed $500K or so will take that shit anyday of the week and twice on fucking sundays...

not to get into arguments here but there is a local radio host...Mark Packer...yes Billy's son...who FUCKING railed on the Big 10 the second week of the season when tOSU, Michigan, and Iowa lost...he went on about keep scheduling MAC schools and what not...but when and SEC or ACC school schedules a MAC school or I-AA school he fucking says nothing...crickets the week Auburn played both Western KY and Ball State and double crickets the weeks LSU played App State and North Texas...and when UNC and what not play Furman...crickets again...FUCKING HYPOCRITE...

anyway as long as the 12th game is legit I could give a fuck who is scheduled...would I like to see ND in the Big 10 hell yeah...it would add a little more punch to basketball, baseball and other sports while elevating football another notch or three...

TheJON · Post by **TheJON** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:35 pm

You sure have quite the potty mouth, SC. Someone needs to wash out your mouth with soap.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:07 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Killian wrote:I have no problem with it. As long as teams don't play D-1AA teams, I have no problem with it. In the next few years we'll pick up Duke and Army. Cupcakes are cupcakes.
Are we picking up Duke? I haven't seen them on any upcoming schedules. I have seen North Carolina on a few upcoming schedules, but that's not nearly the same as scheduling Duke in football.

'07 or '09 I think.

TheJON · Post by **TheJON** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:10 pm

Duke trying to lighten their schedule, so they schedule Notre Dame? Good idea.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:13 pm

TheJON wrote:Duke trying to lighten their schedule, so they schedule Notre Dame? Good idea.

Someone a little pissy now that ND is good and Iowa won't be able to cherry pick IL for the top instate talent?

TheJON · Post by **TheJON** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:16 pm

I'm not worried about ND, I'm worried about Illinois. Just ask Ron Zook, he's going to take all the top Chicago players!!!

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:19 pm

TheJON wrote:I'm not worried about ND, I'm worried about Illinois. Just ask Ron Zook, he's going to take all the top Chicago players!!!

You should be. The days of getting Doering, Richardson, and Moeaki type players from IL, all in one year, are likely over. Actually, not getting those players last year turned out to be a blessing in disguise.

Terry in Crapchester · Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:20 pm

Killian wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Killian wrote:I have no problem with it. As long as teams don't play D-1AA teams, I have no problem with it. In the next few years we'll pick up Duke and Army. Cupcakes are cupcakes.
Are we picking up Duke? I haven't seen them on any upcoming schedules. I have seen North Carolina on a few upcoming schedules, but that's not nearly the same as scheduling Duke in football.
'07 or '09 I think.

You're right, saw it for 11/17/07.

And if we're going to get into justifying the cupcakes, for my money, Duke benefits more from the national TV exposure than EMU benefits from a share of gate receipts at the Big House. Just sayin'. :wink:

TheJON · Post by **TheJON** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:26 pm

Not necessarily. We're still going to always get some quality IL recruits. But there are more and more decent IA recruits every year and we're starting to recruit Florida and New Jersey much better. So even if we lose a few to ND, there's other places to recruit. Besides, Ferentz has done a lot by just developing players. Our 2000 class ranked 11th in the Big-10 and all they did was pick up 2 co-Big-10 championships, 3 new years day bowls, 3 top-10 finishes, and won 38 games. So if we don't get top ranked classes, oh well.

Sky · Post by **Sky** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:35 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:And if we're going to get into justifying the cupcakes, for my money, Duke benefits more from the national TV exposure than EMU benefits from a share of gate receipts at the Big House. Just sayin'. :wink:

Does Duke really gain anything by doing this? You may have been kidding to a degree but beyond money, does it really help recruiting when they get destroyed on national TV?

Terry in Crapchester · Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:37 pm

Sky wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:And if we're going to get into justifying the cupcakes, for my money, Duke benefits more from the national TV exposure than EMU benefits from a share of gate receipts at the Big House. Just sayin'. :wink:
Does Duke really gain anything by doing this? You may have been kidding to a degree but beyond money, does it really help recruiting when they get destroyed on national TV?

To a degree I was kidding. And while I think it may be an open question as to whether a nationally televised demolition of that team occurs, there certainly are more than a few programs willing to line up for it.

Remember how ND moved the BYU game to the first week in September last year? San Diego State and Nevada had to move games to accommodate ND; the quid pro quo for each was that they got a future game against ND. That's one future game at ND -- no home and home. That's also what Duke is getting, and what Baylor got a few years back. As for teams that want a return date from ND, some of them have been willing to play ND twice at ND (e.g., BYU, Syracuse) in exchange for that.

No doubt about it, the possibility of appearing on national TV is driving this, particularly where the program has little hope of appearing on national TV (except possibly in a bowl game relatively low on the totem pole).

Sky · Post by **Sky** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:41 pm

OK, so are they just hoping for a decent showing and that 1 in 100 chance of pulling an upset? But is that worth 99 ass beatings?

Terry in Crapchester · Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:52 pm

I get where you're going with this, and I don't necessarily disagree with you. But some of the AD's of these programs apparently do.

T1B

Did the media get ND in a BCS Bowl?

If a lesser name school had the exact same results as ND, where would they have ended up?