T1B

Between 2006 and '08, Alabama's nonconference opponents combined to have a .365 winning percentage, the worst from a BCS-conference school.

:doh:

They sort of have USC's bit wrong. They said USC managed to play three OOC BCS conference teams in '06, making them one of only six teams to do so. Well, fine, but ND being on their annual schedule is basically another BCS conference level program. Last year USC played Virginia, Ohio St and ND. By most lights that's three OOC BCS conference teams.

This was the bit that killed me...

Big-time intersectional football games are a dying breed. According to ESPN.com, over the past two decades, the number of Top 20 nonconference matchups has decreased by half every 10 years.

There were 11 top-20 nonconference games in 1978, 15 in 1988 and eight in 1998. By 2008, those marquee games had dropped to four.

Yeah, somehow I had a feeling it wasn't just me. I knew BTPCF was getting more pussified, every year. I could feel it in my bones. We're just not getting enough good OOC games anymore and it's becoming quite blatant, the near systemic cowardly avoidance of risky games.

i think the Big XII is the worst this year, seems i read about a month ago. Texas Tech and some of the north teams with the exception of Colorado (glad to have you back Bill Snyder) are pathetic year-in, year-out butt-hustling for that 6th win with a 4-0 OOC slate against the WIU Leathernecks of the world. they've stepped up some, but OSU was always good to have 2 of 3 La Tech, Monroe, or Lafayette on the slate (while dodging Tulsa).

As long as the schools in the Sun Belt are being counted as D1 teams that stat is going to need an asterisk. The teams in the Sun Belt send fewer players to the NFL on average than teams in 1AA. The only reason the Sun Belt schools are considered 1A is so that teams that schedule them OOC constantly would have less of a stigma in scheduling them

SoCalTrjn wrote:The teams in the Sun Belt send fewer players to the NFL on average than teams in 1AA.

Do you think that's because you're comparing a pool of 9 teams to a pool of 130?

that woulodnt be "on average" then would it?
nearly every 1AA conference has had more players drafted or on NFL rosters the last several years than the Sun Belt has

Of course the number of players sent to the nfl is the gold standard of quality college football, su'up ATM?

It is one standard, yes, but the far more relevant standard is the low number of wins the Sunbelt has accumulated against the SEC. The Sunbelt really shouldn't be a D1 conference. They're there, strictly to be cannon fodder.

Getting back to the main point . . .

Van wrote:This was the bit that killed me...

Big-time intersectional football games are a dying breed. According to ESPN.com, over the past two decades, the number of Top 20 nonconference matchups has decreased by half every 10 years.

There were 11 top-20 nonconference games in 1978, 15 in 1988 and eight in 1998. By 2008, those marquee games had dropped to four.

Yeah, somehow I had a feeling it wasn't just me. I knew BTPCF was getting more pussified, every year. I could feel it in my bones. We're just not getting enough good OOC games anymore and it's becoming quite blatant, the near systemic cowardly avoidance of risky games.

Take a look at this. Compared to what we play now, that's quite a difference.

Of course, part of the blame for that belongs squarely at the feet of Kevin White. Our former AD was both a pussy and a money whore of the highest order. An AD might be able to get away with that at, say, Arizona State, but at ND, that's a recipe for disaster.

That having been said, you can't lay all the blame on White. If you'll notice, back then we had four more or less annual marquee opponents: the two we have now (Michigan and USC), plus Penn State and Miami. Of course, the biggest difference between then and now was that back then, both Penn State and Miami were independents. They had slots to fill on their schedule, and therefore, a vested interest in playing ND annually. Today, not so much.

I've been saying this for some time now, and I realize the majority of this board doesn't want to hear, let alone consider this. But it's as plain as the nose on my face. The move toward larger conferences, and the concurrent demise of independents, has done more harm than good to the game of college football. And yet, when one of those "what's wrong with the state of college football" threads inevitably pops up, more than a few people respond with "ND isn't in the Big Ten." Ponderous, that.

The SEC used to be smackable here...but no longer. EVERYONE'S looking to smash cupcakes, the cheaper they come the better... :brad:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:The move toward larger conferences, and the concurrent demise of independents, has done more harm than good to the game of college football.

Why?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:The move toward larger conferences, and the concurrent demise of independents, has done more harm than good to the game of college football.

Maybe, but much more explaination needed. If you ask Miami and Florida State, they will tell you that joining a conference has been very successful for them. I would bet Penn State would say the same thing. Long before Miami joined the Big East, they were moving away from a top notch schedule, dropping UF, BC, and others. So how did they hurt college football by playing tougher schedules?

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:The move toward larger conferences, and the concurrent demise of independents, has done more harm than good to the game of college football.

Why?

I gave you an example. ND used to play both Penn State and Miami on an annual basis. No longer.

In fact, the demise of the Penn State series ties in almost perfectly with Penn State's move to the Big Ten. Miami is admittedly a slightly different animal, but their current status in the ACC would make it just as difficult for ND to resume a series with them right now as it would be to resume with Penn State.

These days, too many conferences are all too willing to hide behind the "meatgrinder" argument and schedule OOC as weakly as possible. The SEC comes in for the most smack in that regard on this board, but they're far from alone in that strategy.

Terry, that's not an either/or situation. ND joining a conference and those other issues are separate issues. College football needs to get their shit together and ND needs to join a conference.

In ND's case, joining the Big 10 means they automatically pick up Ohio St and Penn St on their schedule, most years. Put 'em all in the same division and they get 'em every year. They still get Michigan and Michigan St. Plus, they also get the match-ups against Wisky and Iowa, which helps during those seasons when those teams are decent. (The Big 10 teams also all get help from having ND on their schedule, during those years when ND is decent. Even when they're not decent they're still a marquee program, so it's still a big win for the likes of an Iowa, Indiana or Northwestern.)

With eight conference games ND still gets USC, Navy, BC and a pan of meatloaf.

All in all, that helps the Big 10, since they get an even number of teams, another prestige program and a CCG. Their champion gets to play later in the year. It obviously helps ND's schedule, 'cause now they're adding Ohio St, Penn St, Wisky and Iowa in place of yet another group of cupcakes.

Hmmm. Maybe that's why ND fans are so against the idea. Maybe ND Nation simply wants San Diego St, Syracuse, Army and N. Carolina, instead of having (not "getting," but "having") to play Ohio St and Penn St.

Instead of killing two birds with one stone, ND's refusal to join the conference actually perpetuates and exacerbates two growing problems. Both the Big 10 and ND are weaker, because of it.

I agree completely with that, Van. I think ND would benefit enormously from joining the big 10. The conference would have a better schedule and probably a CCG.

I think the only reason they won't is because the current ND moneymakers foresee their personal shares dwindling. If someone could present them with a scenario where they personally made more money, they'd be all over it. Everything points to positives for the program, university, fanbase and the new conference...but without an increase in the bottom line for the few at ND, it's a non-starter.

Dave, and how much does that completely blow?

Fuck Gordon Gecko.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: I gave you an example. ND used to play both Penn State and Miami on an annual basis. No longer.
.

how many years out of, say, 1970 to 2001 did ND play Miami to qualify as "annual"? Oklahoma (Big 8 ) playing Texas (SWC) out of conference was "annual". a few games in the 80's and 90's isn't really convincing me that was "annual".

I also don't think the movement of independents in the late 80's/early 90's to conferences is even a blip on the reason radar for today's cupcake OOC schedules.

KC wrote:I also don't think the movement of independents in the late 80's/early 90's to conferences is even a blip on the reason radar for today's cupcake OOC schedules.

+1

well, heck. i didn't realize the series was so continuous in the 70's, i stand corrected. However, it's hard to tell what ND fan means by "used to"....does it designate 1970 to 1990 or does it designate since 1921? :wink:

http://www.doubleazone.com/2009/03/notr ... otball.php

"After nearly 20 years, Miami and Notre Dame are close to meeting on the football field again. Athletics directors for both schools acknowledged having a mutual interest in restoring the rivalry. Miami and Notre Dame played annually (1971-1985 and 1987-1990) before the Irish discontinued the series."

PSUFAN wrote:I agree completely with that, Van. I think ND would benefit enormously from joining the big 10. The conference would have a better schedule and probably a CCG.

That would benefit the conference. But how would it benefit ND?

I think the only reason they won't is because the current ND moneymakers foresee their personal shares dwindling. If someone could present them with a scenario where they personally made more money, they'd be all over it. Everything points to positives for the program, university, fanbase and the new conference...but without an increase in the bottom line for the few at ND, it's a non-starter.

Only reason???? C'mon, Dave, you of all people should know better. The principal reason ND won't join the Big Ten is the same reason Penn State won't join the Big East -- a history of animosity between the school and the conference. Only, in the case of ND and the Big Ten, it goes on over a much longer period of time, and at a much deeper level, than for Penn State and the Big East.

Van wrote:In ND's case, joining the Big 10 means they automatically pick up Ohio St and Penn St on their schedule, most years. Put 'em all in the same division and they get 'em every year. They still get Michigan and Michigan St. Plus, they also get the match-ups against Wisky and Iowa, which helps during those seasons when those teams are decent. (The Big 10 teams also all get help from having ND on their schedule, during those years when ND is decent. Even when they're not decent they're still a marquee program, so it's still a big win for the likes of an Iowa, Indiana or Northwestern.)

But that's not what's gonna happen, and you know it. Michigan and Ohio State want to be in separate divisions. ND will get Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Minnesota and Wisconsin as annuals. The latter two are not appealing in the least to ND fans.

Throw in an annual interdivisional matchup, and ND's options are basically Purdue or Penn State. Won't be Ohio State, since they'll get Michigan. Iowa would make more sense with an annual vs. Minnesota, and Illinois-Northwestern also would make more sense. I don't think they'll get Indiana, since Purdue would consider that a snub.

So it comes down to Penn State or Purdue. And given that a ND-Penn State rivalry would be a threat to the hegemony that Michigan and Ohio State enjoy, I'd say it's at least 99% certain that it would be Purdue.

With eight conference games ND still gets USC, Navy, BC and a pan of meatloaf.

ND has a better chance of continuing with Pitt than with BC. Hell, maybe even with Stanford, for that matter. As it is, ND is already set to drop BC from the schedule in the next 3-4 years, maybe less (depends on which sites you look at).

Given that Fredo considers ND their #1 rival, I'd suspect that Fredo doesn't want ND in the Big Ten.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:The move toward larger conferences, and the concurrent demise of independents, has done more harm than good to the game of college football.

Why?

I gave you an example. ND used to play both Penn State and Miami on an annual basis. No longer.

In fact, the demise of the Penn State series ties in almost perfectly with Penn State's move to the Big Ten. Miami is admittedly a slightly different animal, but their current status in the ACC would make it just as difficult for ND to resume a series with them right now as it would be to resume with Penn State.

These days, too many conferences are all too willing to hide behind the "meatgrinder" argument and schedule OOC as weakly as possible. The SEC comes in for the most smack in that regard on this board, but they're far from alone in that strategy.

The NCAA can fix the problem by only allowing BCS conf teams to play other BCS conf teams

King Crimson wrote:I also don't think the movement of independents in the late 80's/early 90's to conferences is even a blip on the reason radar for today's cupcake OOC schedules.

Here's a partial list of great, or at least potentially great, rivalries that died as a direct result of conference expansion . . .

Notre Dame - Penn State
Penn State - Pitt
Penn State - West Virginia
Nebraska - Oklahoma

The last one is a little different from the others, obviously. And it was never a OOC matchup, at least not in the modern era. But Nebraska-Oklahoma was old school Big 8 football, the one game that typified it more than any other. Granted, each program went into something of a tailspin -- Oklahoma in the 90's, Nebraska this decade -- and that hurt the rivalry as well. But conference scheduling in the Big XII didn't do any favors for this series.

Btw, I find it interesting that, in contrasting the ND-Miami series, you mentioned OU-Texas. While this admittedly is an outside-looking-in perspective, up until the early to mid 90's, I would've considered Nebraska a more significant rival for Oklahoma than Texas.

Going back to this . . .

Van wrote:ND needs to join a conference.

ND does not need to join a conference. In fact, I laid out here exactly what ND should do when it comes to scheduling. More marquee opponents and more variety on the schedule, without sacrificing the traditional rivalries, the obligation games, or the desired locations for away games (i.e., at least one road game in the northeast and one road game in the west per season). What's not to like?

And for that matter, with lack of variety being one of the common complaints from the fanbase about ND's schedule, why join a conference and only sacrifice more of that variety?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Btw, I find it interesting that, in contrasting the ND-Miami series, you mentioned OU-Texas. While this admittedly is an outside-looking-in perspective, up until the early to mid 90's, I would've considered Nebraska a more significant rival for Oklahoma than Texas.

i only use OU-UT as an example of an elective, not-conference mandated "annual" rivalry. i'd say for fans my age and older or so there's no doubt Nebraska was the bigger, more important rivalry "inna day". These days, it's all about Texas for better of for worse. The OU-NU rivalry was pretty unique by comparison, all the hoky stuff you read (used to read) about a rivalry based on respect was pretty true. I wanted NU to win all their games but one.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

King Crimson wrote:I also don't think the movement of independents in the late 80's/early 90's to conferences is even a blip on the reason radar for today's cupcake OOC schedules.

Here's a partial list of great, or at least potentially great, rivalries that died as a direct result of conference expansion . . .

Notre Dame - Penn State
Penn State - Pitt
Penn State - West Virginia
Nebraska - Oklahoma

maybe we are talking about different things, but from a "conference football" perspective, that's only 6 teams (4 independents) out of 100+. 4 of those joining conferences may be significant for the demise of "Independent" football, but not so much in the big picture of today's cupcake scheduling by BCS conference teams. The latter is a function of choice made by AD's that has everything to do with the benjamins and little or mostly less to do with not being able to schedule Pitt in months other than September.

i have a good buddy who is a Penn State guy and he used to run smack about OU and NU and how soft the Big 8 was. i did some research on PSU's schedule as an independent and it's not always a pretty sight. for every tilt with NU or ND there's a couple Duquenses and Lehighs. Not to mention the steady diet of service academies (not including AFA) that was part and parcel of Independent life on the east coast in the 70's and 80's. So, i'm not sure there isn't a bit of nostalgia that seems a bit Romanticized about life as an "Independent".

Terry, no matter how you slice it, no matter how you attempt to dodge it, no matter how you attempt to frame it to your advantage, the fact remains: ND joining the Big 10 means you're picking up Ohio St, Penn St, Iowa, Illinois and Wisky on your schedule, in place of cupcakes. Would you get all of them, every year? Maybe not. Some years you might, if you're good enough, because of the CCG. Would you get them a lot more than you're getting them now, guaranteed? No question. You'd at least get them the majority of the time.

And there's no reason the Big 10 wouldn't set up ND-Penn St as an annual inter-division game. The whole point would be to get ND there for the purposes of creating a more compelling league. Keeping Penn St on an island and shuttling ND off to play Purdue makes no sense at all. They're going to want ND playing Ohio St, Michigan and Penn St. No matter what, you'd at least play them more years than not.

Regardless, there's no arguing that joining the Big 10 helps ND's scheduling, especially with the way ND's been trending lately, with their ever more pussified scheduling. It's pretty simple. When was the last time you played a regular season game against Ohio St? Penn St? Wisky? Iowa? When was the last time you played San Diego St? Syracuse? N. Carolina?

Didn't you just sign up to play Army again?

Join the Big 10, and stupid games like those become your one pan of meatloaf OOC match-up per year. They don't make up the majority of your schedule, as is now becoming the case.

ND is too greedy to join a conference so all the BCS conferences should just ban their members from playing Notre Dame. See how much NBC is willing to pay for a Notre Dame schedule of service academies and directionals and once Notre dame loses their cash stream made from the BCS conference schools they will have to join a BCS conference.

the BCS conferences should just ban their members from playing Notre Dame.

Greed is in no way exclusive to ND, toejam. It is the salient reason that they won't join the Big 10, but it is also the reason why SC and PSU and other teams would never boycott them in scheduling.

Unfortunately, ND - and lots of others - operate to benefit the few, not the many. Personally, I think the few will have to die off before anything changes.

in 2009 Texas had scheduled both Utah and Arkansas as part of their non-conference games. Utah pulled out when Kyle Whittingham took over, and 2 years ago Arkansas rescheduled their home game which was scheduled for this year for 3 years down the road. This has left Texas with UTEP replacing Utah and Wyoming replacing Arkansas.

Still proud to say Texas has never scheduled a sub-D1-A school.

Splitting hairs on that a little aren't you.

Granted Sam Houston was a fill in for a canceled game a few years ago, but you still played them.

Texas has nothing to brag about OOC. leave the state of Texas more, and gain some respect. if you want to be a national power instead of a regional OOC one, that's how you do it.

the Ohio State series was a start.

Texas is definitely not on the list of teams which still haven't played any D1-AA teams. There are only something like five teams remaining, and Texas sure ain't one of 'em. I could be wrong but IIRC Sam Houston St isn't the only D1-AA opponent they ever played.

Anybody got that list handy? I know USC is on there, but I can't recall the other three or four teams who still haven't played any D1-AA teams.

I don't know the entirety of the list. I do know that Michigan State is on the list for now, but has Montana State on its schedule either this year or next, so they're set to go off fairly soon.

ND is also on the list, your constant schedule-bashing of ND notwithstanding. As in the case of major independents, I suspect ND ultimately will be the last team on this list.

SoCalTrjn wrote:ND is too greedy to join a conference so all the BCS conferences should just ban their members from playing Notre Dame. See how much NBC is willing to pay for a Notre Dame schedule of service academies and directionals and once Notre dame loses their cash stream made from the BCS conference schools they will have to join a BCS conference.

Of course, ND uses that money on such frivolous things as providing full financial aid to all academically-qualified students who can demonstrate financial need. I wish they had that program in place when I was a student.

Btw, ND probably could get a similar financial package from the Big East if they chose to join that conference for football. I'm pretty sure the Big East would allow them to keep the NBC deal (not sure if NBC would still want them, though, as they want an independent), and they could probably negotiate something similar to the BCS at-large payout from the BCS share payable to the Big East champ for any Big East championships ND were to win.

Terry, for years and years I always held up ND as an example of one of the teams who scheduled aggresively. It's only in recent years that I've begun to give them shit about their scheduling and even there I don't give them nearly the same amount of shit I give to the 8-4 home and away teams who load up on cream filled Sunbelt and D1-AA pastries.

It all goes away, just as soon as ND stops hiding behind their need for preferential treatment. The moment ND joins the Big 10, I'm off their back. That is, unless of course their OOC schedule suddenly looks like Wisconsin's, with only USC still sitting there. If they join the Big 10 and their OOC schedule retains the teams you say are untouchables (USC, Navy and Pitt) then they can schedule anybody they want for that fourth OOC game, as long as it's not a D1-AA team.

If I'm ND, I'd rather play Fredo than Pitt. Fredo seems like the more established rival for ND.

Van,

I think in the last twenty years or so Texas has had just that one D1-AA school. Still not ok, but much better than many.

Lefty, you may be right. I'll research it and post my findings....

The AD's have shown that they are incapable of scheduling, they need a D1 comittee to step in and make everyones schedules for them, all balanced and all BCS level teams should only play other BCS level teams
Quit purchasing wins you fucking pussies. (San Jose State is no different for USC this year, Garrett must have realized that it doesnt pay to have balls and schedule aggressively when OU and Florida both have the same amount of losses as USC and go to the BCS title game instead of the Trojans)

Left Seater wrote:Van,

I think in the last twenty years or so Texas has had just that one D1-AA school. Still not ok, but much better than many.

Lefty, I gave up, after checking the past eleven seasons. It was just getting to be too much of a hassle.

At least from those eleven seasons, you're right. Sam Houston St is the only one. All those Arkansas St, La-Monroe and North Texas games, I guess at the time I chalked those up in my head as being D1-AA teams.

Looking over their OOC schedules, Texas has flat out feasted on Sunbelt patsies, plus Rice. Jesus, does the Sunbelt exist for any reason other than to provide home game cannon fodder for the SEC and Big XII?

Texas sure hasn't traveled much OOC, either. If it isn't in Texas, or bordering Texas, don't bother 'em.

Cracked me up, also, to see where they lost to Washington St, Stanford and UCLA, the last time they played each of 'em.

Man, I love looking up old college football crap.

In 1992 they apparently played North Texas, which was 1-AA at the time.

Mgo, they also played North Texas a couple/few times during those eleven years I looked up, from '98 through 2009, so the question then becomes what year did North Texas become D1?

It appears throughout their history they've toggled back and forth between divisions. They were "re-instated" into D1 in 1995.

http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Texas.htm

This link will show what status N. Texas was when Texas played them in any given year. Throughout that 20 year span, Texas only played them once when they were non D1.

Reading up a bit on North Texas, I saw that Georgia will shell-out $975,000 to play them in the future. That's a lotta money for a cupcake.