Shameful scheduling...

[RammerJammer91]

The SEC is not flawless, no matter what certain talking heads say. Nor is ESPN helping to pull the strings to get them into BCS Title games or going to great lengths to get them the highest preseason rankings, one of my favorite conspiracy theories from various fan bases.

Here's the truth: The last few seasons, the top 5-6 teams in the SEC have arguably been better (and you can easily make a DAMN strong case for it) than any other conference's top 5-6 teams. This past year, those teams were: Bama, Georgia, A&M (who, imo, was playing the best ball in the country after their loss to LSU), South Carolina, LSU, and Florida. In 2011: Bama, LSU, Arkansas, South Carolina, Georgia. 2010: Auburn, LSU, Bama, Arkansas, South Carolina, MSU. Etc. The thing that ticks me off is when people say that the conference is unbeatable and perfect. Uhhh, no. It's not. Teams that have tended to be bottom tier teams like MSU, Kentucky, Ole Miss etc. aren't any better than other conferences bottom teams. Sure, Vandy, TN, Ole Miss will have some 8+ win seasons and pass for average or slightly above average teams, but they're not exactly the greatest things since sliced bread, either.

 

[chubler]

The problem I have with suggesting the SEC's top 5-6 teams are better than every other conference's is the lack of consistent quality competition within most SEC schedules. In aconference like the Big 12, you have one off game and you're done, because everyone (except Kansas, obviously) in the conference is at least halfway decent. IMO, the top 2 or 3 teams in the SEC are clearly better than the top 2 or 3 teams in any other conference, but most years, 4-6 are no better, and actually probably a little weaker, than the Big 12 and the Pac-12's 4-6 (the B1G sucks). I think we'd see that reflected in the records better if the SEC forced teams to play schedules with more consistent depth, instead of schedules with a lot of pushovers and 2 or 3 titans.

With that said, what do the bowl records say? I'm too lazy to look it up...

 

[NDWorld247]

Conference Bowl Records: This Year And Last 15 Years

Why SEC Isn't As Great In Football As You Think | ThePostGame

 

[D-BOE34]

If you play the best teams in your conference, you can play whoever outside of it. If BAMA plays Florida, LSU and Georgia, I don't mind Tenn-Martin. Because they will also have to win the SEC Champ game. We play our schedule to leave no doubt when we sit during the weeks conferences have their Championships.

 

[phork]

But they don't play all of them at once. Thats the problem.

 

[ACamp1900]

The SEC is not flawless, no matter what certain talking heads say. Nor is ESPN helping to pull the strings to get them into BCS Title games or going to great lengths to get them the highest preseason rankings, one of my favorite conspiracy theories from various fan bases.

Here's the truth: The last few seasons, the top 5-6 teams in the SEC have arguably been better (and you can easily make a DAMN strong case for it) than any other conference's top 5-6 teams. This past year, those teams were: Bama, Georgia, A&M (who, imo, was playing the best ball in the country after their loss to LSU), South Carolina, LSU, and Florida. In 2011: Bama, LSU, Arkansas, South Carolina, Georgia. 2010: Auburn, LSU, Bama, Arkansas, South Carolina, MSU. Etc. The thing that ticks me off is when people say that the conference is unbeatable and perfect. Uhhh, no. It's not. Teams that have tended to be bottom tier teams like MSU, Kentucky, Ole Miss etc. aren't any better than other conferences bottom teams. Sure, Vandy, TN, Ole Miss will have some 8+ win seasons and pass for average or slightly above average teams, but they're not exactly the greatest things since sliced bread, either.

The same A&M team that muddled around the Big 12... A supposed inferior conference??... Sure boss

 

[kmoose]

Understood, and I don't disagree. I was just responding to the idea that a team plays a FCS school should be ineligible to play for the championship. If they institute uniform scheduling its not like teams just go off and play FCS teams anyways.

It's not so much the scheduling of an FCS school, but the scheduling of lousy FCS schools.

Idaho State has gone 6-50 in the last five seasons and hasn’t won more than two games in a year since 2007.

Western Carolina has gone 12-66 the last seven seasons which includes shutout losses to Florida, Florida State and Vanderbilt.

VMI is 19-80 since 2004 and was ranked 238th in Sagarin last season.

SEMO is 6-16 the last two seasons with one winning season in the last decade.

There’s no shame in losing big to Kansas State and Louisville as Missouri State did last season, but the Bears have not won more than six games since 1996.

No excuse!

 

[GowerND11]

I think the big boys should be limited to scheduling one FCS team per every 4 years.

FIFY. I've said this numerous times. NCAA needs to go back to the old rule they discarded in the early 2000s. You can schedule one FCS/1AA team every 4 years. If you schedule more in that time frame those wins do not count towards bowl eligibility.

 

[RammerJammer91]

The same A&M team that muddled around the Big 12... A supposed inferior conference??... Sure boss

So teams can't improve from year to year? Didn't ND improve quite a bit from 2011 to 2012? Or, even 2 years for ND, from 2010 to 2012? Other teams can do that too, man. Take off the ND colored goggles and look at it objectively. A&M was a good team this year, and their 2 losses were close losses to 2 quality teams.

 

[GowerND11]

So teams can't improve from year to year? Didn't ND improve quite a bit from 2011 to 2012? Or, even 2 years for ND, from 2010 to 2012? Other teams can do that too, man. Take off the ND colored goggles and look at it objectively. A&M was a good team this year, and their 2 losses were close losses to 2 quality teams.

I believe what he was getting at was how pretty much every SEC fan claimed how horrible A&M would struggle in a "real" conference. They wouldn't be able to match up with the SEC speed and size, yet they went 10-2. Were they better than the year before? Absolutely, but at the same time SEC fans were so quick to tout A&M as an SEC team when they turned out to be good.

 

[ACamp1900]

So teams can't improve from year to year? Didn't ND improve quite a bit from 2011 to 2012? Or, even 2 years for ND, from 2010 to 2012? Other teams can do that too, man. Take off the ND colored goggles and look at it objectively. A&M was a good team this year, and their 2 losses were close losses to 2 quality teams.

I'm the one with glasses on who needs to be objective??.. The hell did I say anything about ND.... Man alive.

 

[NDWorld247]

I posted this link last night from my phone: Why SEC Isn't As Great In Football As You Think | ThePostGame. The stats do not include the 2013 season, but the article makes a pretty strong argument for how ESPN and media bias has benefited the SEC while on-field results lag behind public perception of SEC 'dominance' (thanks to ESPN and 'expert' polls).

"Judging by inter-conference records -- that is to say actual games as opposed to media guesswork and bestowed rankings -- the SEC plays other BCS conferences about equally. Witness the record since the start of the BCS era in 1998:


SEC vs. PAC-12 regular season: 10-12
SEC vs. Big 12 regular season: 6-10
SEC vs. ACC regular season: 42-36
SEC vs. Big 10 regular season: 7-4
SEC vs. Big East regular season: 16-15

The record is clear. In head-to-head match-ups against other major conferences, the SEC has either a combined losing record or one that's generally only a little better than even."

 

[RammerJammer91]

I posted this link last night from my phone: Why SEC Isn't As Great In Football As You Think | ThePostGame. The stats do not include the 2013 season, but the article makes a pretty strong argument for how ESPN and media bias has benefited the SEC while on-field results lag behind public perception of SEC 'dominance' (thanks to ESPN and 'expert' polls).

"Judging by inter-conference records -- that is to say actual games as opposed to media guesswork and bestowed rankings -- the SEC plays other BCS conferences about equally. Witness the record since the start of the BCS era in 1998:


SEC vs. PAC-12 regular season: 10-12
SEC vs. Big 12 regular season: 6-10
SEC vs. ACC regular season: 42-36
SEC vs. Big 10 regular season: 7-4
SEC vs. Big East regular season: 16-15

The record is clear. In head-to-head match-ups against other major conferences, the SEC has either a combined losing record or one that's generally only a little better than even."

I think we all agree that it's not unbeatable. Anyone who says that it is is clueless. And, frankly, all the outcry over it is just plain stupid (in the sense that it continues every year and various fan bases complain, when their opinion is actually right, yet they keep falling victim to certain talking heads). And I doubt any intelligent person cares what certain "talking heads" have to say. Example: Mark May. He pumps up the SEC and craps on ND, the latter I believe is partially do to the fact that he's working alongside Lou Holtz, who picks ND to win virtually every game. Neither of them are serious all the time, it's just to get good ratings and is part of their schtick, IMO. Another example: Colin Cowturd. The guy is a complete fraud 90% of the time and just makes questionable/idiotic statements because he knows that will fire people up and bring him attention.

It is a quality conference with a few very good teams, and a few other quality/solid, but not great teams. At least half, and sometimes the majority, are average, below average, or just plain mediocre. Because a few conferences are just plain mediocre (Big East, ACC, Big Ten), there really are only a handful of quality conferences. SEC, PAC-10, Big XII.

 

[Redbar]

Because they play in the best conference in the country. They need to compensate for the difficult conference schedule. I have absolutely no problem with that. The object is to win championships, not entertain football fans.

Step away from the Kool-Aid. Seriously though I am sick of everyone riding on the prestige of a couple of schools in the SEC. For Alabama or LSU or you name it there are 2 or 3 teams on their schedule where they could potentially be in a dog fight, the same as almost every other team. The difference is most other schools have 2 or 3 games where they should win but they will have to come ready to play. LSU, Bama, UF...they really don't have those, they can play average or even poor and win 9 games a year. There is virtually no way most teams on Bama's schedule will beat them, so they shouldn't get to use the we play in the toughest conference excuse. If Arkansas or Ole Miss, Vandy or Kentucky, Tennessee or Mizzou, even Auburn or S. Car. claimed that... maybe, but UF, Bama, LSU, TAMU, and UGA literally insure that they only have to come to play 2 or 3 times before the post season.

 

[TK22867]

These games just shouldn't be allowed. I pray the new playoff strongly considers strength of schedule.

Yes, they should be allowed, but not more than 1 per year. This is a good source of revenue for FCS schools, among other reasons.

The list on the link provided by the OP is a complete joke. 3 of those schools are in the MVFC, one of the premier conferences in the FCS. That team from South Dakota? Yep, the same team that beat Minnesota a few years ago.

My Jackrabbits lost to Nebraska 17-7 three years ago at a night game in Lincoln and we had 2 touchdowns called back over bogus calls. We have them again this year.

We are not all cupcakes. Check with me on September 22.

 

[GreenSox04]

Universities that compete for BCS championships should not be playing programs that can not make a BCS bowl (fcs schools.) This allows fcs schools to have a say (or lack thereof really) in shaping something they aren't really apart of as far as I'm concerned..

plain and simple.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Universities that compete for BCS championships should not be playing programs that can not make a BCS bowl (fcs) schools. This allows fcs schools to have a say (or lack thereof really) in shaping something they aren't really apart of as far as I'm concerned..

plain and simple.

Well put

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Yes, they should be allowed, but not more than 1 per year. This is a good source of revenue for FCS schools, among other reasons.

The list on the link provided by the OP is a complete joke. 3 of those schools are in the MVFC, one of the premier conferences in the FCS. That team from South Dakota? Yep, the same team that beat Minnesota a few years ago.

My Jackrabbits lost to Nebraska 17-7 three years ago at a night game in Lincoln and we had 2 touchdowns called back over bogus calls. We have them again this year.

We are not all cupcakes. Check with me on September 22.

I understand from a FCS school point of view because of the money. I couldn't imagine buying a ticket to one of those games or being interested in watching on TV. So glad ND does it the right way by not scheduling DI-AA schools. Wins over those schools shouldn't count as a win for the DI-A school. If they want to play them, make it an exhibition.

 

[Redbar]

The issue of FCS schools and revenue is totally separate from the issue of FBS schools vying for Championships and maybe you shouldn't be trying to do one if your also trying to do the other. This argument carries no weight with me. Besides I am sure Nike U cares so much for the viability of Nicholls State.

 

[TK22867]

I couldn't imagine buying a ticket to one of those games or being interested in watching on TV.

I realize I am on an ND fan site, but that is spoken like an FBS school fan. It is quite exciting if you put the shoes of the FCS fan.

The whole basis of this thread is that FCS schools are weak and the FBS schools shouldn't play them. That might hold for a majority of the FCS, but there are some very good teams in our division.

I am confident NDSU (back to back champs) could have won several games in the B1G. They have even beaten Minnesota.........TWICE.

South Dakota is getting a check for $525k to go out and play Oregon. That's great revenue for the school and will provide a great experience for their fans, while giving Oregon a tune-up.

FCS schools will gladly provide that service until the NCAA dictates otherwise.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

I get what you're saying. If I was a student or alum of a DI-AA school, I would love playing (and possibly knocking off) a big DI-A school.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

I realize I am on an ND fan site, but that is spoken like an FBS school fan. It is quite exciting if you put the shoes of the FCS fan.

The whole basis of this thread is that FCS schools are weak and the FBS schools shouldn't play them. That might hold for a majority of the FCS, but there are some very good teams in our division.

I am confident NDSU (back to back champs) could have won several games in the B1G. They have even beaten Minnesota.........TWICE.

South Dakota is getting a check for $525k to go out and play Oregon. That's great revenue for the school and will provide a great experience for their fans, while giving Oregon a tune-up.

FCS schools will gladly provide that service until the NCAA dictates otherwise.

I get what you're saying. If I was a student or alum of a DI-AA school, I would love playing (and possibly knocking off) a big DI-A school.

 

[kmoose]

I realize I am on an ND fan site, but that is spoken like an FBS school fan. It is quite exciting if you put the shoes of the FCS fan.

The whole basis of this thread is that FCS schools are weak and the FBS schools shouldn't play them. That might hold for a majority of the FCS, but there are some very good teams in our division.

I am confident NDSU (back to back champs) could have won several games in the B1G. They have even beaten Minnesota.........TWICE.

South Dakota is getting a check for $525k to go out and play Oregon. That's great revenue for the school and will provide a great experience for their fans, while giving Oregon a tune-up.

FCS schools will gladly provide that service until the NCAA dictates otherwise.

Again........... it's not that these teams are FCS, necessarily........ it's that they are lousy FCS teams. Go back and look at the list......... some of these teams are not even competitive at the FCS level. Major FBS teams have NO BUSINESS putting them on their schedule.

 

[RammerJammer91]

Step away from the Kool-Aid. Seriously though I am sick of everyone riding on the prestige of a couple of schools in the SEC. For Alabama or LSU or you name it there are 2 or 3 teams on their schedule where they could potentially be in a dog fight, the same as almost every other team. The difference is most other schools have 2 or 3 games where they should win but they will have to come ready to play. LSU, Bama, UF...they really don't have those, they can play average or even poor and win 9 games a year. There is virtually no way most teams on Bama's schedule will beat them, so they shouldn't get to use the we play in the toughest conference excuse. If Arkansas or Ole Miss, Vandy or Kentucky, Tennessee or Mizzou, even Auburn or S. Car. claimed that... maybe, but UF, Bama, LSU, TAMU, and UGA literally insure that they only have to come to play 2 or 3 times before the post season.

Completely get what you're saying and I agree with a good portion of it. But, say for instance, ND and Bama swapped 2012 schedules. The only team that would have challenged Bama would have been Stanford, and Bama very likely would have won, quite possibly by more than 2TD's. After that, no one else. Oklahoma, with their inconsistent defense, would have gotten their arse handed to them. It would have been ugly. Regardless if Bama had to play in Norman.

But, I totally understand what you're saying and agree with quite a bit of it. And frankly, I wish Bama would schedule more challenging games, whether it be home-and-home series (like they did recently with Penn State), or neutral site games. As much as I enjoy Bama succeeding on the football field, I enjoy matchups with 2 quality opponents. It's not only great for the fans of those two teams, but college football fans, in general. But, keep in mind that it's easy as an ND fan to nitpick schedules when they're not in a conference, where as a team like Bama, who is in a conference has the majority of their schedule locked in with Conference games. Say ND agreed to join the Big Ten (would never happen, ND deserves better than playing against a bunch of stiffs). A mediocre conference with the majority of their games for the season locked in. And say, out of conference, they schedule: Oklahoma, USC, Navy, and BC. That schedule wouldn't be far more difficult, if at all, with only 2-3 games against solid teams, than Bama's would with A&M (in 2013), LSU, and throw in a good SEC East team, like UGA or South Carolina.

 

[phork]

In regard to the revenue this generates, there was an article written a few years back basically calling these games Blood Money. These poor kids are outclassed, out trained, undersized..

Now I don't care if your championship team could beat Indiana or Minnesota. I am sure they could beat the dregs of the SEC as well then. The point of the matter is if you are a D1A football team, you should play D1A football teams, period. If you want a break then schedule the Minnesotas or the MAC schools or whoever. Drop the facade of D1AA is a legitimate idea.

 

[Bishop2b5]

In regard to the revenue this generates, there was an article written a few years back basically calling these games Blood Money. These poor kids are outclassed, out trained, undersized..

Now I don't care if your championship team could beat Indiana or Minnesota. I am sure they could beat the dregs of the SEC as well then. The point of the matter is if you are a D1A football team, you should play D1A football teams, period. If you want a break then schedule the Minnesotas or the MAC schools or whoever. Drop the facade of D1AA is a legitimate idea.

I pretty much agree with you. I, and most other fans, don't like the games against FCS schools. They're scheduled in order to give the starters a break from an otherwise grueling schedule and gain some game experience for younger players, and are really nothing more than glorified scrimmages. Of course the FCS programs love them because they gain exposure and a huge payday. I could live with one such game per season, but more than that is too much.

 

[GowerND11]

I pretty much agree with you. I, and most other fans, don't like the games against FCS schools. They're scheduled in order to give the starters a break from an otherwise grueling schedule and gain some game experience for younger players, and are really nothing more than glorified scrimmages. Of course the FCS programs love them because they gain exposure and a huge payday. I could live with one such game per season, but more than that is too much.

Grueling? I'm sorry but I see a 5 week stretch in Alabama's schedule where they have it basically easy.

Week 1: Va Tech- No gimmie, but Va Tech is down in recent years and should be a comfortable win.
Week 2: Oh a bye week before the biggest game and it's only week 2....
Week 3: A&M- Hard game, no complaints.
Week 4: Another bye week. Yawn.
Week 5: Ole Miss- Never EVER as good as their recruiting classes seem. Easy victory.
Week 6: Georgia Southern-............. Really?
Week 7: Kentucky- SEC bottom feeders.
Week 8: Arkansas- Probably heading back down to average. Never played the big games well anyway in the last 5 years.
Week 9: Tennessee- Tire fire if ever there was one. Maybe Butch Davis will help, but c'mon not this year.
Week 10: 3rd bye of the year..... Right before the LSU game. Got to get those players healed. (I admit plenty of schools schedule a bye before a big game in the middle of the season, but this is absurd.)
Week 11: LSU- Tough game. Again, no complaints, but after a bye week this isn't as tough.
Week 12: Mississippi St- Not a very good team. That 8-0 start last year was against an absolutely laughable schedule.....
Week 13: Chattanooga- Real nail biter of a game here.
Week 14: Auburn- Rival? Yes. Played worse than talent last year? Yeah. A REAL good SEC team? Not really. Average.

Yep that schedule is grueling. So glad they didn't soften it up with USC east, Florida, and/or Georgia.......

 

[RammerJammer91]

Grueling? I'm sorry but I see a 5 week stretch in Alabama's schedule where they have it basically easy.

Week 1: Va Tech- No gimmie, but Va Tech is down in recent years and should be a comfortable win.
Week 2: Oh a bye week before the biggest game and it's only week 2....
Week 3: A&M- Hard game, no complaints.
Week 4: Another bye week. Yawn.
Week 5: Ole Miss- Never EVER as good as their recruiting classes seem. Easy victory.
Week 6: Georgia Southern-............. Really?
Week 7: Kentucky- SEC bottom feeders.
Week 8: Arkansas- Probably heading back down to average. Never played the big games well anyway in the last 5 years.
Week 9: Tennessee- Tire fire if ever there was one. Maybe Butch Davis will help, but c'mon not this year.
Week 10: 3rd bye of the year..... Right before the LSU game. Got to get those players healed. (I admit plenty of schools schedule a bye before a big game in the middle of the season, but this is absurd.)
Week 11: LSU- Tough game. Again, no complaints, but after a bye week this isn't as tough.
Week 12: Mississippi St- Not a very good team. That 8-0 start last year was against an absolutely laughable schedule.....
Week 13: Chattanooga- Real nail biter of a game here.
Week 14: Auburn- Rival? Yes. Played worse than talent last year? Yeah. A REAL good SEC team? Not really. Average.

Yep that schedule is grueling. So glad they didn't soften it up with USC east, Florida, and/or Georgia.......

Look at it both ways. What grueling games does ND have? And by "grueling", I mean games against solid teams. Stanford, Oklahoma, and who else? Michigan State wasn't all that good last year, USC was mediocre, and had numerous deficiencies on Defense. Michigan was a quality team, but far from a real good team.

Bama really only has LSU and A&M. ND really only has Stanford and Oklahoma. And Oklahoma wasn't a really good team by any stretch of the imagination. They were 1 play away from losing to West Virginia, and should have lost to Oklahoma State. They got exposed for the FRAUDS that they were by A&M, and the scariest part was A&M left 2 more TD's out there. On the flip side, LSU was not a really good team at all. They were a quality team, but not a really good, or even great team. A&M was a really good team, and Stanford was a really good team.

But look at my previous post. Had ND and Bama flipped schedules in 2012, how many dog fights would Bama have been in? MAYBE one, that being Stanford. And there's a good chance that Bama would have won by 2TD's, maybe even more. They wouldn't have had tight games against Purdue, Pitt, BYU, Michigan (home game instead of neutral site) etc, and they would have embarrassed Oklahoma. Not defending Bama's less than stellar OOC schedule, but it's insanely easy for ND fans to nitpick a team's schedule, like Bama's, when ND isn't even in a conference. If they were in a conference, they would have 8-9 of their games locked in with conference opponents, and only 3-4 OOC games.

 

[GowerND11]

The point I'm making though is SEC claims it is so tough. Are there good teams? Absolutely! No doubt! But when you claim that, but Bama doesn't even play any tough team from the east that is invalid to tout how difficult the SEC schedule is. On top of that not 1 but 2 FCS teams on the schedule. It's ludicrous to schedule like that. Bama couldn't find a Sun Belt, MAC, or formerly WAC team to schedule? That's my beef. The supposed best team in the nation has a creampuff schedule with a weak in conference games and 2 FCS teams. Yeah they should go undefeated or close to it.

And that then gets us to the problem of preseason rankings being an idiotic idea and it handicaps teams based on perception before the season.

About ND's schedule. Sure it wasn't as difficult as initially seemed. Could be the same this year. But at the same time ND doesn't schedule FCS teams and can pride themselves on that.

 

[ACamp1900]

Look at it both ways. What grueling games does ND have? And by "grueling", I mean games against solid teams. Stanford, Oklahoma, and who else? Michigan State wasn't all that good last year, USC was mediocre, and had numerous deficiencies on Defense. Michigan was a quality team, but far from a real good team.

Bama really only has LSU and A&M. ND really only has Stanford and Oklahoma. And Oklahoma wasn't a really good team by any stretch of the imagination. They were 1 play away from losing to West Virginia, and should have lost to Oklahoma State. They got exposed for the FRAUDS that they were by A&M, and the scariest part was A&M left 2 more TD's out there. On the flip side, LSU was not a really good team at all. They were a quality team, but not a really good, or even great team. A&M was a really good team, and Stanford was a really good team.

But look at my previous post. Had ND and Bama flipped schedules in 2012, how many dog fights would Bama have been in? MAYBE one, that being Stanford. And there's a good chance that Bama would have won by 2TD's, maybe even more. They wouldn't have had tight games against Purdue, Pitt, BYU, Michigan (home game instead of neutral site) etc, and they would have embarrassed Oklahoma. Not defending Bama's less than stellar OOC schedule, but it's insanely easy for ND fans to nitpick a team's schedule, like Bama's, when ND isn't even in a conference. If they were in a conference, they would have 8-9 of their games locked in with conference opponents, and only 3-4 OOC games.

It's more difficult to play two or three BIG games a year without any real tune ups or gimmes elsewhere... than it is to play two or three BIG games a year and..................

We will never know what bama would have done againt ND's schedule because they didn't play it.