Hey, kids! It's time to play...2009 OOC schedules!

[Van]

First off, Sam has been following CF long enough that he remembers Washington from before the Don James era. Secondly, Washington has been good not just for the national title year but for most of the modern era. They've won multiple Pac 10 titles and Rose Bowls. This current shitty spell for them is very much the exception and not the rule.

Remember, we're comparing Washington to Furman and Chattanooga here, and to Mississippi St, Vandy and Kentucky.

A little perspective, please.

[M Club]

beating washington has become the cf equivalent of hogging. michigan has more wins than that notre dame team you keep defending in this thread as a historical power: a win against them last year counted for... a win, plus some comedy? you know who else is awesome? texas a&m. colorado. smu. pitt. syracuse. army.

A little perspective, please.

ja, seriously.

chattanooga < washington < miss state or vandy or kentucky

it's not that hard, the only difference being you might lose to those sec teams.

[Van]

One other difference...

-6 Modern era Rose Bowl appearances, including 4 wins.

-An Orange bowl win, back when that actually meant something

-A then record 22 game winning streak

-A national title

-15 bowl game appearances in eighteen seasons

-A .728 winning %

And that's just the Don James era. Washington did more just during his one tenure there than all those other teams accomplished in their combined history, post WWII.

Washington is down right now but get the fuck off them. They have been great and they will be great again. You look like a complete moron trying to compare Washington to the dregs of the SEC.

As for ND, again, seriously STFU before you hurt yourself. Nobody in America has a better annual opponent than USC does in ND. Nobody. Notre Dame is the most prominent team in the sport. They have the most (bullshit) national titles (way more than Michigan), the most (bullshit) Heismans (way more than Michigan), the second most all time wins (second or third, I believe) and they're way up there in all time All Americans, CF HOF-ers and NFL HOF-ers.

Michigan sucks balls right now. Michgian literally couldn't beat a D1-AA team...in The Big House. Michigan is fucking horrible. Should Ohio St drop them from the schedule? Is Michigan-Ohio St not still considered a marquee game? Is scheduling Michigan now considered the equivalent of scheduling any other 3-9 piece of shit Big 10 team? Is Michigan now considered the Rust Belt Mississippi St?

Do you really want to continue this?

[M Club]

You look like a complete moron trying to compare Washington to the dregs of the SEC.

i think a moron would take the time to look up don james' stats to prove his...point? i'm not the one trying to compare udub to the sec dregs. you are. i'm pretty sure none of the sec teams went 0-11 this year, so really, there's not much comparison to be made.

As for ND, again, seriously STFU before you hurt yourself. Nobody in America has a better annual opponent than USC does in ND. Nobody.

wow, that one word sentence really emphasizes your point. NOBODY!, except perhaps michigan, michigan state, purdue, and navy. nobody.

pretty funny how the premise of this thread is to complain about teams unfairly padding their w-l record and getting by on image and the best you can do is reference udub and notre dame's past glory, which is relevant to usc's annual dick trip how?

Notre Dame is the most prominent team in the sport. They have the most (bullshit) national titles (way more than Michigan), the most (bullshit) Heismans (way more than Michigan), the second most all time wins (second or third, I believe) and they're way up there in all time All Americans, CF HOF-ers and NFL HOF-ers.

quite the rhetorical flourish. since thin air is the only thing on which you've based any sort of argument you have to resort to your team sucks. notre dame [way more than michigan], notre dame [way more than michigan], notre dame [second or third?]. the answer to that question would be michigan, both wins and winning percentage.

Michigan sucks balls right now. Michgian literally couldn't beat a D1-AA team...in The Big House. Michigan is fucking horrible. Should Ohio St drop them from the schedule? Is Michigan-Ohio St not still considered a marquee game? Is scheduling Michigan now considered the equivalent of scheduling any other 3-9 piece of shit Big 10 team? Is Michigan now considered the Rust Belt Mississippi St?

really? that's how you're going to make your point? ok, washington now counts as a quality win because i can't bear the fact my team sucked last year, will be mediocre next season, and will challenge ohio state thereafter as the conference's standard bearer.

Do you really want to continue this?

by all means, clown.

[indyfrisco]

As for ND, again, seriously STFU before you hurt yourself. Nobody in America has a better annual opponent than USC does in ND. Nobody. Notre Dame is the most prominent team in the sport. They have the most (bullshit) national titles (way more than Michigan), the most (bullshit) Heismans (way more than Michigan), the second most all time wins (second or third, I believe) and they're way up there in all time All Americans, CF HOF-ers and NFL HOF-ers.

First off, USCFan calling other team's titles "bullshit" is fucking laughable. See 1939 "bullshit" title USC claims.

Secondly, while I won't discount USC/ND as a premeire annual game, I have to give the nod to FSU. FSU and Miami are in the same conference now, but before that merger, they were playing Miami and Florida regularly OOC. That was an impressive OOC schedule. They still got Florida each year and for the forseeable future, I'd say that annual matchup is tougher than ND.

[M Club]

van is probably on page 81 of his response where a 7-6 sec team sucks but a game against notre dame is so full of prestige and history that it's worth three wins for usc because they generally win by 94 points.

[MuchoBulls]

Our OOC for 2009:

WOFFORD
@ Western Kentucky
@ Florida State
MIAMI

FIU just dropped us last week and picked up a 1 for 1 with Rutgers, so we're pretty much fucked now and will probably have a second 1 AA on the schedule now.

[King Crimson]

van is probably on page 81 of his response.....

heh.

[Van]

Washington or Washington St. couldn't have won a game in the SEC if the SEC teams would have spotted them 30 points.

Guess what? That was true in the Pac 10 as well. Who do you think dropped most of those 30+ point beat downs on those two teams last season?

An average UGA team went out and slapped the fuck out of ASU in their house.

ASU was horrible. The SEC's third best team played a meh game against one of the Pac 10's bottom feeders; a team who lost at home to UNLV the week previous.

[Van]

First off, USCFan calling other team's titles "bullshit" is fucking laughable. See 1939 "bullshit" title USC claims.

You'll get no argument from me there. Elsewhere on this board I've already mentioned how I think all national titles awarded before the mid to late '60s were bullshit.

USC's, Bama's, ND's (especially ND's)...everyone's. All bullshit. Awarding the national title before the bowl games had been played was asinine and in many years we saw national titles awarded to four or five teams.

[SoCalTrjn]

Actually Washington's current state is shocking to me, as I always considered them a quality program. I don't recall them ever being this low.

Admittedly, Vandy and Miss. State and Kentucky traditionally suck. Yet, as I said before, rarely, if ever, do you see a 30-point spread for an SEC game. The bookies know. They ain't stupid.

rarely do you see SEC teams play enough offense to win by 30, USC gave up a combined 45 points in its last 4 games vs SEC teams and they weren't playing Miss State, Vandy, Kentucky or Ole Miss. USC scored a combined 168 points in those 4 games as well so you can save the felation of the SEC defenses.

[Van]

LSU at Washington
Saturday, September 5, 2009


:)

Imagine that.

LSU is the ambulance chaser of CF.

[SoCalTrjn]

LSU at Washington
Saturday, September 5, 2009


:)

Imagine that.

LSU is the ambulance chaser of CF.

depends on how long ago that game was scheduled. Washington has won a BCS Bowl, how many other SEC teams are willing to travel to play a team that has won a BCS Bowl for an OOC game? If they scheduled that game in the last 2 years then it would seem much less daring

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

When talking about the credibility of SOS, I think you always have to speak in the present tense. When looking at opponents on a team's schedule, you are judging how good they are right now. You are not judging how good they once were over a carefully selected period of time. If Washington won a Rose Bowl x amount of years ago, how is that going to bolster Sagarin's SOS ratings right now?

I don't care about history, or projected "future success." A Vandy team that won a bowl game is simply a better opponent than a winless Washington team right now. No two ways about it.

10 years ago Washington was better than Vandy or Ole Miss. Right now Vandy and Ole Miss are better. Furthermore, who's to say even when and if Washington will be back? What kind of talent do they have coming through the pipeline? How did they do on signing day? Does anybody know? I don't think I heard their name mentioned once. It's still irrelevant, as we're talking about right now. Computer polls and SOS figures are determined mostly by up-to-date stats. Past glory plays no part in these objective, formulaic results.

When looking at SOS, do you look at how good the teams are RIGHT NOW or do you look at how good they once were or how good they might be in the future? It's clear which method of evaluation is more credible.

[Van]

Mgo, of course when looking at SOS you have to look at right now. Nobody's suggesting otherwise.

However, when making up your schedule it's usually five years or so in advance and in the big picture of CF it's probably the more ambitious call to schedule Michigan or Washington than Vandy or Mississippi St...or Furman.

Waiting until a big name program is in the toilet before you finally schedule them, that's bush.

In USC's case they play ND every year, come hell or high water. They have to take the good with the bad. They have to take what's going on now, same as they had to take losing to them every year for more than a decade not too long ago.

The point there is USC has ND as their annual rival. ND has shown the ability to beat USC. ND leads the series. As annual OOC games go, nobody has a better opponent lined up than USC does with ND.

LSU? Other than for one brief intermission in the series LSU's annual game is against...Tulane. Who among us can recall the last time Tulane beat LSU?

SOS is separate from scheduling. SOS will always be an unknown until you actually arrive there and see how your opponents are faring that season. Scheduling though, it's usually pretty transparent in its intent. Nobody will ever be able to say that scheduling Chattanooga and a couple of directional schools was as honorable as scheduling Ohio St and ND. In each instance the intent was clear.

[Van]

so you can save the felation of the SEC defenses.

Wasn't referring to the great SEC defenses (whassup Sooners? :D ) so much as the balance of the conference. You won't see Vandy as a 30-point dog to anyone other than UF.

That's simply not true. Down through the years Vandy, Kentucky and both Mississippi schools have been been 30 point dogs countless times to Bama, Florida and LSU. Countless times they didn't cover.

[Van]

i'm not the one trying to compare udub to the sec dregs. you are.

No, SECBSH is. I'm merely refuting it.

i'm pretty sure none of the sec teams went 0-11 this year, so really, there's not much comparison to be made.

I'm also pretty sure Washington doesn't go 0-12 either had their OOC schedule looked like those of the dregs of the SEC.

Washington's OOC schedule for 2008 included Oklahoma, BYU and ND. Not exactly a couple of directional schools plus a 1-11 D1-AA team.

2007 included Ohio St, Boise St and Syracuse.

2006? Oklahoma, Fresno St and San Jose St.

For 2009 they play LSU, Idaho and ND.

Gee, ya' think maybe if Washington substituted a few Furmans, Norfolk Sts and Woffords for those pesky Oklahomas, Ohio Sts, LSUs and Boise Sts they might've racked up a few more wins?

[M Club]

The point there is USC has ND as their annual rival. ND has shown the ability to beat USC. ND leads the series. As annual OOC games go, nobody has a better opponent lined up than USC does with ND.

this is why you're not not-smart. this statement was discredited and you still persist in using it to make the point you pretend to have.

[Van]

M Club, it was never discredited. The key words were "better" and "annual."

"Nobody has a better annual opponent than USC does with ND."

That was the statement. You didn't discredit anything.

Navy may have an equally good annual opponent but they don't have a better one.

Many teams have better opponents in a given year, or a given stretch of years, but nobody has a better opponent over the course of an uninterrupted ("annual") series.

Taken as a whole and assuming you have any perspective whatsoever on the tradition of CF ND is a monster annual opponent.

To see their equal you have to go to conference match ups, which involve teams you have to play. Those aren't games where you have the option of scheduling someone else in their place, as USC and ND do with each other.

Yeah, maybe Ohio St or Michigan could make the argument that in each other they have a better annual opponent than USC has with ND. Maybe. Michigan does have more wins than ND.

Maybe OU-Texas have an argument, especially since they were an OOC match up for each other for the majority of the series.

I'd still place ND above Michigan and Ohio St though if we're building an historical hierarchy of CF. I believe most people would, if they take the entire history of each program into account. Regardless, again, Ohio St-Michigan isn't the type of game we're talking about here. We're talking about OOC scheduling and no other BCS conference team has a USC, ND, Michigan, Ohio St, Texas, OU, Nebraska or Bama as an annual opponent stretching in an uninterrupted span across nearly the entire time line of the sport.

Now that OU and Texas play in the same conference USC is the only one.

In games you actually schedule nobody has a better annual opponent than USC has with ND. This hasn't been discredited and it cannot be discredited; at least not for a very long time. ND will have to stay in the tank for another twenty years or so before this statement might no longer be true.

Miami-Florida St might get there eventually but they haven't been at it long enough and they haven't been great programs for long enough.

OU-Texas, that would've been the only other one. Had they stayed in separate conferences a solid argument could be made that those two teams have a better OOC annual opponent than USC has with ND.

It'd be a long debate trying to decide who has been the better all time program between ND, OU and Texas, and therefore the best annual opponent...

[indyfrisco]

Miami-Florida St might get there eventually but they haven't been at it long enough and they haven't been great programs for long enough.

As I said earlier, Miami/FSU are now in the same conference. I do see FSU/FLorida, with more years added, taking over as the best non-conf rivaly simply because FLorida being the recruiting hotbed that it is, both teams should always be pretty damn good even if you sprinkle some bad years in.

[Blueblood]

Washington would have ass-fucked Auburn into tomorrow. That's not even up for debate.

Washington lost to BYU by 1 point.

.. and we've seen the SEC's act... when one of their best teams plays a Mountain team from out west. Even when the game was in their own backyard.

[Van]

No - you stupid fucking turd. SEC has DEFENSE - something the Pac 10 has never had.

A Pac 10 team had the best defense in the country last year. Moreover, Pac 10 defenses traditionally have to deal with Pac 10 offenses, which have long been the most innovative and explosive offenses in the country.

You've been playing a shitty horrible Arkansas team.

That "shitty horrible" Arkansas team beat out Auburn, Bama and LSU to win the SEC West.

The ineffective running back who had the most carries that day for that "shitty horrible" Arkansas team against USC was named Darren McFadden. He did pretty well against the SEC though, IIRC.

That "shitty horrible" Arkansas defense which gave up 50 at home to USC (a solid improvement over the 70 they gave up to USC the previous year, but then USC was breaking in a new QB for that '06 game in Fayetteville) only gave up 10 in a 17 point blowout win over #3 Auburn at Jordan-Hare Stadium. They also only gave up 14 in a blowout win over #15 Tennessee.

Seemed like a pretty fucking stout defense....as long as they were playing SEC teams.

Van - I would almost venture to say that playing Notre Dame the last 2 years has actually hurt USC in the BCS rankings.

Absolutely. Bare minimum, playing ND hasn't helped USC. ND is supposed to be a signature win, not a pastry. Having ND be so down is definitely hurting USC, no doubt about it.

[Van]

Miami-Florida St might get there eventually but they haven't been at it long enough and they haven't been great programs for long enough.

As I said earlier, Miami/FSU are now in the same conference. I do see FSU/FLorida, with more years added, taking over as the best non-conf rivaly simply because FLorida being the recruiting hotbed that it is, both teams should always be pretty damn good even if you sprinkle some bad years in.

My mistake. I meant Florida-Florida St, not Miami-Florida St.

[SoCalTrjn]

so you can save the felation of the SEC defenses.

Wasn't referring to the great SEC defenses (whassup Sooners? :D ) so much as the balance of the conference. You won't see Vandy as a 30-point dog to anyone other than UF.

and you wont see an SEC team play an offense a bit more complicated than a division 2 pop warner Mitey Mite team other than Florida either

[M Club]

M Club, it was never discredited. The key words were "better" and "annual."

"Nobody has a better annual opponent than USC does with ND."

That was the statement. You didn't discredit anything.

Navy may have an equally good annual opponent but they don't have a better one.

oh, touche, you win that one, though notre dame actually has a better annual opponent: usc. and michigan. no, they haven't played the last 2000 years, but they have since 2001 and will so for the next 4000.

florida and florida state also have better annual opponents: each other. none of the 12 apostles played for them like jesus himself did for notre dame, but those two have been exponentially better than them since i've been alive. it's pointless to mention notre dame's history when attempting to claim them as the best ooc opponent unless you're working the marketing angle. they've been on their way back for 15 years now. that 37-game bowl losing streak should have told you their interim success has been smokd and mirrors.

if udub had an sec ooc then they would have been 3-9, assuming they also played in the actual sec. no conferece wins there either, despite the rose bowl they won with warren moon.

[Van]

oh, touche, you win that one, though notre dame actually has a better annual opponent: usc.

Like I said with ND-OU-Texas, that'd be one helluva all time debate, ND vs USC.

I'm not prepared to say USC is the better all time program, compared to ND. They're better now. All time? Debatable. I'd probably have to go with ND.

I'd still rather be us than them though, 'cause of now. I'd fuggen hate to be an ND fan now. Say what you will about the Paul Hackett years. Rip on Ted Tollner and Larry Smith. Scoff at the second John Robinson era.

Knock youself out, ND Fan. It still was never the Charlie Weis Era, following the Ty Willngham Era.

<insert Meds' Charlie Weis press conference pics here>

Right now ND is the midst of an historic low. USC was never this bad, at least not during my lifetime anyway.

and michigan.

Same thing. There would be a long debate as to who has the all time better program between Michigan and ND...and Texas, OU, Nebraska, USC, Ohio St and Bama.

Like I said, I'd go with ND over Michigan. Michigan has been more like the Don Sutton of CF. They're all about consistency and longevity, without ever really being dominant. Michigan's never been as glamorous as ND. They've won a few more games, sure, but who gives a fuck about those turn of the century games?

ND is more like the Mickey Mantle of CF. Lotta myth, lotta hardware, very beloved. ND has more hardware than Michigan. They have the more storied tradition. They're more instrumental in building the popularity of the sport. They played in more big games.

ND has just been more important than Michigan, while basically being equally good.

Michigan's been better though over the last twenty years, certainly, plus they hold a narrow series edge. They haven't been a dominant program but they've been better than ND over the last two decades.

All time? I'd certainly entertain the argument for Michigan over ND. It's very close. They're right there.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

There would be a long debate as to who has the all time better program between Michigan and ND...and Texas, OU, Nebraska, USC, Ohio St and Bama.

Let's not forget Cal. Sure, they don't win conference titles or compete for national championships, and their rival is historically one of the worst major conference teams in America, but damnit, they're pretty close to this really nice bridge.

[Left Seater]

Lefty, how are you coming up with only 55 teams? Only counting the six BCS conferences and the four Independents there are already 69 teams. Then there's the MWC, WAC, Conference USA, etc.

There are plenty enough teams out there to cover OOC games and 6-6 schedules (plus neutral site games), without ever going outside of D1. Hell, it could be managed without ever going outside the BCS conferences.

Van that is just a rough estimate. So add 10 teams and say it is 65 teams.


First things first. If you are serious about forcing teams to play a balanced 6-6 schedule you have to decide what to do about the neutral site games. Do you allow the home team at the neutral site to schedule an extra home game every other year? If you do, then guess what someone has give up a home game. If you don't then you are screwing the home team out of game and forcing them to travel 7 times every other season. Do you do away with all neutral site games?

Secondly you better throw out most of the teams in the non BCS conferences. Many of those schools require some sort of visiting payments to compete at the D-1A level. Sure some don't sell a home game to the highest bidder, but many agree to sign contracts where the opponent gets two games at home and they get only one. For that they are compensated. For others they agree to multi year deals but the home games are played at a neutral field in their same city. See UofH playing games at Reliant. Move to a 6-6 schedule and many of these teams are finished in D1-A without the payouts.

Once you start to lose some of the non-BCS schools then you begin to worry about the lower rung of BCS schools. Take the lower level of the Big XII for example. Iowa State will fly to only two games next season. Kent State and Texas A&M. Baylor is usually good for only three flights a year. If these guys start having to fly to more games, you could see them dropping out of D-1A.

Do we really want only 60 some teams available for scheduling?

[Left Seater]

OK, so now we have two polar opposite explanations for scheduling 7-8 home games a year. How can home games against FCS patsies be a windfall for both the patsy and the home team?

I do like the idea of scaling back the FBS division though. If doing that would ensure balanced scheduling, I'm all for it.

Mike,

For many programs home games are a huge windfall. 100,000 tickets at close to $100 each is around $10 Million per home game. Take from that $ 1 Million that you paid to the opponent, another $500,000 for their expenses of travel, and you still have $ 8.5 Million left from ticket sales alone. Concessions and clothing sales prolly cover the expenses of staging the game. Then if there is any TV money you add that to the take.

This isn't only for games against FCS division opponents. Plenty of FBS division teams take the road game payout.

[Van]

First things first. If you are serious about forcing teams to play a balanced 6-6 schedule you have to decide what to do about the neutral site games. Do you allow the home team at the neutral site to schedule an extra home game every other year?

I'm fine with 6-5-1 schedules for teams with annual neutral site games. There just aren't that many of those. Let 'em enjoy 'em.

If you do, then guess what someone has give up a home game. If you don't then you are screwing the home team out of game and forcing them to travel 7 times every other season. Do you do away with all neutral site games?

Huh? Texas and OU each still play six home games. They play five roadies and the RRS. Same with Florida and Georgia and their Cocktail Party game.

6-5-1. Their neutral site games are very cool so they get to keep their six home games and they get to only have to do five true roadies. Bully for them.

Secondly you better throw out most of the teams in the non BCS conferences.

Gladly. The sooner the better.

Many of those schools require some sort of visiting payments to compete at the D-1A level. Sure some don't sell a home game to the highest bidder, but many agree to sign contracts where the opponent gets two games at home and they get only one. For that they are compensated. For others they agree to multi year deals but the home games are played at a neutral field in their same city. See UofH playing games at Reliant. Move to a 6-6 schedule and many of these teams are finished in D1-A without the payouts.

Good riddance. Let teams like Utah St and North Texas play where they belong...against each other. There's no reason teams like that should be appearing on a UT schedule.

Once you start to lose some of the non-BCS schools then you begin to worry about the lower rung of BCS schools. Take the lower level of the Big XII for example. Iowa State will fly to only two games next season. Kent State and Texas A&M. Baylor is usually good for only three flights a year. If these guys start having to fly to more games, you could see them dropping out of D-1A.

You'd also see them receiving more big home games against good teams, with greater cash payouts.

If Iowa St can't survive in the Big XII and if Mississippi St has no business being in the SEC than so be it. Replace 'em with teams who can survive and who do belong.

Do we really want only 60 some teams available for scheduling?

It'd be more than 60 but yes, absofreakinglutely. A college football season comprised of BCS conference teams plus a few Independents and a few non BCS teams who can pull their weight all playing nothing but each other would be spasmodically excellent.

It'd be a thousand times better than the crap we have now. Once this was in place a real playoffs would then make sense and the whole world of BTPCF would be bunny rabbits and rainbows.

[Dinsdale]

Other than Oregon St pussing out and playing the Dins St Fighting Glanvilles pretty much everything is status quo with Pac 10 OOC schedules.

Far be it for me to defend the Livestock Abusers, but in this case I'll try to give a glimpse into the local landscape...


Frankly, the Sheeple are a much smaller fanbase than The O. Sure, they're very vocal (sidenote -- they built a competitive program about 10 years or so ago, after a huge influx of booster cash and being a laughingstock for 30 years... but to listen to these folks talk, Nebraska, USC, Texas and OU can't combine to equal the "football tradition" that OS has... and no, I'm serious, and these tards actually believe the shit that comes out of their holes, although rational people realize Portland State has a stronger tradition of winning football thn OS does).


Anyhoo, it's a money thing. Since in most peoples' eyes, no matter how many 10 win seasons OS racks up, they're still the stepchild. And the general populace at large tends to favor that game-check staying in the state university system, since OS is usually going to schedule cupcakes as often as not (therewas a bit of outrage when they played 1AA Eastern Washington, the feeling being that if they're going to play 1AA's, they damn well better be writing the check to the OREGON state university system, not Washington's). Oregon gets some of the same pressure, but since they typically schedule much stronger, they get more slack.

Heck, I think some do-gooder actually tried to enact legislation requiring U of O and OS to play Portland State every year... but since Phil can buy the state capitol, it didn't get very far, thank goodness -- cooler football minds prevailed.

Heck, Oregon still deals with the pressure of people thinking they should keep their old WCC rivalries alive... their main Old Days Rival being Idaho.

In the modern CFB world, anybody who isn't a casual fan sees how impractical and ridiculous this is, but "by-the$$-numbers" people don't get it.

But scheduling the Glanvilles is strictly a dollars and cents issue... and in a way, I can see they're point -- the largest school in the state doesn't emphasise athletics, and if OS is going to cupcake the OOC, they might aswell keep the cupcake money "in the family." While I may not agree wholeheartedly, I can certainly understand the logic behind it (although I'll never understand OS's logic in cupcaking in the first place).

There is this doozy though...

Oregon

at Boise St
Purdue
Utah

Damn, Dins! Utah and Boise St?

The only reason Oregon isn't #1 in SoS every freaking year is because the ADs of certain big name schools don't answer their phones when the caller ID shows a 541 area code.

Anyone, anytime, anywhere. Been that way for over 20 years, and any weaknesses in Oregon's OOC slate are due to external entities, not from within. We hear rumors about talks with all kinds of schools, then they make BS excuses to back out (sup Nebraska). They will cite financial reasons, but that's horseshit (Autzen is relatively small, but are near the top of D1 in ticket prices, so the revenue is there).


If Oregon had their way, they'd play 2-3 big big name schools every season. Too bad few teams not in the PAC feel the same.

You'd best represent the Pac this time, bitch.

I might have to make the roadie... there's a lot of anger over last season's loss at home... a lot.

If I go, I certainly will "represent the PAC" -- I'll show them how a PAC fan holds their liquor... although the BSU fans I hung out with were no fucking slouches in that department (and what happy drunks they were).

[Van]

Dins, serious two part question...

-In your estimation how on earth did Oregon St manage to comprehensively pull themselves out of thirty years of being flat out abysmal?

-Might WSU be able to pull off something similar now?

[Dinsdale]

-In your estimation how on earth did Oregon St manage to comprehensively pull themselves out of thirty years of being flat out abysmal?

I would think being such a PAC honk, you already know this (and you probably do, but are initiating February CFB talk, which is always aces in my book)...


Very simple, one-word answer...

"Money."

In the mid/late 90's, not only was the OS athletic department feeble on the field, they were in debt up to their eyeballs, to the point of unsustainable panic. They had two options for recovery at that point -- leaving the PAC10, or hope for a miracle.

And... they're still in the PAC (winning national titles, no less... who woulda thunk it?).

The miracle came in the form of successful alums -- the Reser family (Reser's Fine Foods... which on a sidenote, they should be investigated for fraud for calling that "fine" food... in cali, I'm sure your grocery shelves are loaded with their subpar garbage, but I digress). They made an initial donation of like $8 mil or something, the lion's share of which went to pay outstanding debts, the rest to revamp that high school stadium, which is now, oddly anough, known as Reser Stadium (which is inaccurate -- I believe it's still Reser Field at Parker Stadium, but I could be wrong on that).

Apparently, Ma and Pa Reser met like 60 or 70 years ago at an OSU game, got married, and became titans of the shitty processed food business, and decided to "give back"...

And I'll interject a big local funny from us Beaverton-area Duck fans -- Reser's "Fine" Foods is across the street from Nike in Beaverton (in my old neighborhood, more or less). You've never noticed it before, but the next time you see any Reser's crap on the store shelf, you'll notice the Reser corporate logo is Beaver colors. At the time, it seemed like the Reser's donations were a "keeping up with the joneses" move with their next door neighbors... which is kind of funny, because their whopping $8 mil came on the heels of one of Phil's $100,000,000+ donations to Oregon (he built the new library out-of-pocket, he's building the new basketball arena, and I think he's put about a half billion bucks out of his own pocket into both academics and athletics at Oregon). That whole interplay really hammered home the redheaded stepchild image of OS.

On local boards/blogs, Corvallis is often refered to as Beandiptown, or less commonly, Salsa City... used derogotorially, of course.


But, they got the financial ship righted, put resources into recruiting (and turned a blind eye to the thugs that are so grossly out-of-place in Corvallis), and got Riley to come home (twice).

The wheels were set in motion.

-Might WSU be able to pull off something similar now?

I dunno -- how many ultra-wealthy alums does Wazzu have? There has to be some, I would think.


Isn't that what all this bigtime athletics stuff comes down to? Once you have money, you simply need to relax your integrity, and boom... you have a program.

[Van]

Hopefully for Wazzou this guy...



...has really deep pockets.

[Terry in Crapchester]

First things first. If you are serious about forcing teams to play a balanced 6-6 schedule you have to decide what to do about the neutral site games. Do you allow the home team at the neutral site to schedule an extra home game every other year?

I'm fine with 6-5-1 schedules for teams with annual neutral site games. There just aren't that many of those. Let 'em enjoy 'em.

If you do, then guess what someone has give up a home game. If you don't then you are screwing the home team out of game and forcing them to travel 7 times every other season. Do you do away with all neutral site games?

Huh? Texas and OU each still play six home games. They play five roadies and the RRS. Same with Florida and Georgia and their Cocktail Party game.

6-5-1. Their neutral site games are very cool so they get to keep their six home games and they get to only have to do five true roadies. Bully for them.

Secondly you better throw out most of the teams in the non BCS conferences.

Gladly. The sooner the better.

Many of those schools require some sort of visiting payments to compete at the D-1A level. Sure some don't sell a home game to the highest bidder, but many agree to sign contracts where the opponent gets two games at home and they get only one. For that they are compensated. For others they agree to multi year deals but the home games are played at a neutral field in their same city. See UofH playing games at Reliant. Move to a 6-6 schedule and many of these teams are finished in D1-A without the payouts.

Good riddance. Let teams like Utah St and North Texas play where they belong...against each other. There's no reason teams like that should be appearing on a UT schedule.

Once you start to lose some of the non-BCS schools then you begin to worry about the lower rung of BCS schools. Take the lower level of the Big XII for example. Iowa State will fly to only two games next season. Kent State and Texas A&M. Baylor is usually good for only three flights a year. If these guys start having to fly to more games, you could see them dropping out of D-1A.

You'd also see them receiving more big home games against good teams, with greater cash payouts.

If Iowa St can't survive in the Big XII and if Mississippi St has no business being in the SEC than so be it. Replace 'em with teams who can survive and who do belong.

Do we really want only 60 some teams available for scheduling?

It'd be more than 60 but yes, absofreakinglutely. A college football season comprised of BCS conference teams plus a few Independents and a few non BCS teams who can pull their weight all playing nothing but each other would be spasmodically excellent.

It'd be a thousand times better than the crap we have now. Once this was in place a real playoffs would then make sense and the whole world of BTPCF would be bunny rabbits and rainbows.

Since you brought it up (sorta) . . .

Last night the family and I went out to dinner. A local chain, decorated in a sort of sports bar motif, had a "kids pay what they weigh" night. Can't go wrong with that.

Anyhoo, the walls of the place are decorated with framed covers of old SI magazines. I had to use the men's room, and on my way back to the table I couldn't help but look at a few.

One had Marcus Allen on the cover, the year he won the Heisman. He had made the cover following USC's win over Oklahoma. That got me to thinking . . .

USC-OU. In the regular season.

How cool would it be if we could get games of that sort today? In the regular season?

Unfortunately, I don't see it happening anytime soon. Short of games involving ND, as well as certain legislatively-mandated games (e.g., Florida-Florida State), you rarely, if ever, get a true marquee OOC matchup in the regular season anymore. $$$ and the "schedule for a national championship" mentality have prevailed.

And college football is the worse for it, imho.

[Left Seater]

Huh? Texas and OU each still play six home games. They play five roadies and the RRS. Same with Florida and Georgia and their Cocktail Party game.

6-5-1. Their neutral site games are very cool so they get to keep their six home games and they get to only have to do five true roadies. Bully for them.

Van,

Without getting into all the math, you can't have 6-6 schedules for everyone else and allow Texas, OU, Georgia, and Florida to play a neutral site game and still have 6 home games. If the teams that play neutral site games still get a 6th home game, then someone else has to lose a home game.

So, again, do you do away with the neutral site games or do you pick a few teams to lose a home game?

[Dinsdale]

Pac 10's "state related but NOT state schools" programs: Oregon

WTF are you talking about?

U of O isn't "state related" -- it's a public U, funded by the state.

Sure, there's a foundation on the side that tries to collect the private donations and whatnot, the rest of the funding comes straight out of the state university budget.

Mike Bellotti is employed by the State of Oregon. Legislature has to approve his contracts, if'n I'm not mistaken.


Straight-up "state school," not "state related." As is Oregon State, as is Portland State (and a bunch of the little compass-colleges are now no longer "state related," but are now full-fledged "state schools." While this is fairly new with Southern Oregon (world's capital of drug use), et al, Oregon has been a state school since its origin).

[Dinsdale]

Lefty has got to be stopped from coming in here and making sense!

You mean like this:

For many programs home games are a huge windfall. 100,000 tickets at close to $100 each is around $10 Million per home game. Take from that $ 1 Million that you paid to the opponent, another $500,000 for their expenses of travel, and you still have $ 8.5 Million left from ticket sales alone.

Might make more sense if he hadn't just made it up off the top of his head.


Although his chain of logic is sound, and offers a good outline in answering the question he was asked...

That's where the "sense" part ends.


Unless of course he cares to name the NCAA team that averages $100 a ticket (since I just happened to see the list yesterday, I know he just made that up -- no team is anywhere near that. From what I remember, I believe Texas was #1, but it wasn't $100).

[indyfrisco]

Dins,

As for the $100/ticket, if you calculate in the mandatory "donations" required to buy the tickets for many schools, it gets to around $100/ticket. A&M they sell tickets now that face from $60-$90/ticket. Add in the required $300 (cheapest) donation PER SEAT for 7 games ($42/game), you are looking at $102-$132 per game. Parking passes at A&M go for about $50/game if you want to be in the same area code as the stadium. All these things add up. Then you have the costs of the luxury boxes which are damn higher than $100/ticekt.

At A&M, I don't know how many of the 96k seats or so are held by season ticket holders. Students get discounted rates and I don't know what those are these days. When I was a student, we got sports passes for about $100 which covered all games, but at A&M, every student is guaranteed a ticket. Most other schools are not that way I don't believe.

So, $100/ticket as an average? I buy it. Of course, this is for the bigger schools. I would say there is a consistent sliding scale based upon the success, size and quality of facilities for any school.

[Dinsdale]

So, $100/ticket as an average? I buy it. Of course, this is for the bigger schools. I would say there is a consistent sliding scale based upon the success, size and quality of facilities for any school.

I would pick this apart... if I could freaking remember the freaking website with the cool database I just happened across yesterday. It had a pretty decent breakdown of the BCS conference ticket prices... but of course, I can't find it now.

Anyhoo, I seem to remember Texas got the most per tix.... with all of the PAC schools being way up near the top.

But even with the donation scam, I don't think anyone averages $100 a seat, or even close too... but despite a couple of websearches, I can't back my statements up like I thought I could, and I'm not going to try 800 searches to find the page again.