College football 2009

[Donoghus]

This article speaks to something a poster was saying last week and to what Roy has been saying for 3 weeks.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-boise110709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

It basically says Boise St has called every good team in the country offering to show up and play any time anywhere, without asking for a return trip to Idaho, but every school in the country is afraid to play them. He's specifically asking for 2011.

So if they won't play them, in 2011 they should automatically be ranked #1 in the preseason, right? I mean if you're afraid of Boise St, it's because you think they're better, right?

And I guess Oregon should be ranked #2 since they're the only ones that will put themselves on the line. Don't expect USC to line up to play Boise St.

No, they shouldn't automatically be ranked #1. Boise State faces a Catch-22.  They play in a below average non-BCS conference and they also play in a system where teams are becoming more reluctant to schedule tough non-conference opponents because of the BCS implications.  For example, playing in the SEC alone amounts to playing two or three "make or break" games a year.  Why make life harder by also scheduling a tough non-BCS team?  Its about bowl payouts, not fearing opponents.  Playing a tough non-conference schedule on top of your conference schedule could mean quite the decrease in bowl revenue coming your way.

Once again, this has nothing about what's going on, on the field. It has everything to do with economics.

Actually Dons, that's not true about the revenue. Conferences share their revenue. Check out my post from earlier:

I have two best friends since childhood. One is a Sports Information Director at an ACC school. The other is an Assistant Athletic Director at a Big 12 school. We were inseparable as kids and when they can get time after the bowls and in the early summer, they come home and we talk shop, shop for them, incessantly over beers at the local tavern or on the links. This BCS conversation is one we talk about ALL THE TIME. The simple fact is this, there isn't a person associated in athletics at a Divsion 1 playing football university in America that doesn't want a playoff system.

Oh, in public they say what they have to say or what they feel will get them in the least amount of trouble, but behind the scenes, there isn't a coach, athletic direct, sports information director or player at a top 40 school that doesn't want a playoff system.

But what the athletes and athletic personnel want and what the deans, presidents, and higher ups that are the power brokers at the university, what the people who run the bowls and parades and festivities associated with the bowls and what the networks want are completely different things. Too many extremely high paying yearly jobs, too much university revenue, too much money is invested in the current structure that getting the people who have the power to elicit change will never happen because there's no guarantee for those people that the monet stream will continue if everything is changed.

Don't forget how the conference money structure works for bowls. If a team from a conference makes a bowl the payout for that bowl does not go directly to the team. It goes into a fund that then is divided among all the teams in the conference.

Take the SEC for instance. They are guaranteed the Sugar bowl for the champ if the champ isn't in the National championship game. They will most likely also get an at large BCS team as well this year. They also have guaranteed births to the Music City Bowl, the Independence Bowl, the Chick-Fil-A Bowl, the Outback Bowl, the Capital One bowl, the PapaJohns.com Bowl, the Cotton Bowl and the Liberty Bowl. But even if they don't get an at large BCS berth they still have 8 guaranteed slots every year. Look at the money they get:

Sugar Bowl   $17,000,000
Music City Bowl   $1,6000,000
Independence Bowl   $1,100,000
Chick-Fil-A Bowl   $2,400,000
Outback Bowl    $3,000,000
Capital One Bowl   $4,250,000
PapaJohns.com Bowl   $300,000
Cotton Bowl   $3,000,000
Liberty Bowl   $1,500,000

So without getting and at large BCS berth the SEC conference with 12 teams is guaranteed to split up, at a minimum, $34.15 million every year. Now take into consideration that in the 11 year BCS history the SEC has gotten an at large bid 6 time and probably will again this year. So 60% of the time the SEC is making around about $15,000,000 more or a total, due to bowls of about $50 million or more than $4 million per school. whether they go to a bowl or not.

No way the SEC university presidents decide to shut off that money stream just to properly crown a champion. And it's the same in the ACC, Big 10, Big East, Big 12 and Pac 10.

You see, the teams in power conferences not wanting to schedule a Boise State has nothing to do with bowl money revenue. All that money is shared in larger power conferences. But it does have everything to do with a couple of other things:

1.) Reciprocation of having to travel to Boise to play a game where the travel costs can get excessive.

2.) The wear and tear of the players themselves who would suffer trying to win a national title if a team scheduled three out of conference foes like Houston, Boise State and another power conference team. The competition in the power conferences is usually so tough that teams need to schedule weaker foes for easy victories.

3.) The perception of BSU being a weak team and having a loss to them look like a bad loss. The advantages of beating a BSU as an out of conference foe just does not outweigh the disadvantages of losing to a BSU in the fickle minds of some of the obviously power conference biased voters. The BCS is great and all but the main part of it still mainly depends upon getting votes in most of the different polls and averaging it all out. Many voters look at a win over a BSU as a supposed foregone conclusion that should have happened to a power conference team and a loss as a really bad upset. In this important manner, it just doesn't pay to schedule them.

My reference with revenue had to do with the fact that a team going to the Fiesta Bowl is going to bring in a lot more money for its conference at itself than if it goes to a second tier or third tier bowl.  There is a HUGE dropoff from making a BCS bowl or not, in regards to $$.  Why make your life harder by scheduling tough, non-conference competition if you don't have to?  

I'm aware that the revenue goes to the conferences.

[Donoghus]

Btw, Oregon is down 10 to Stanford early. 

Boise St. needs Oregon to keep winning to help its cause.

[nickagneta]

This article speaks to something a poster was saying last week and to what Roy has been saying for 3 weeks.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-boise110709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

It basically says Boise St has called every good team in the country offering to show up and play any time anywhere, without asking for a return trip to Idaho, but every school in the country is afraid to play them. He's specifically asking for 2011.

So if they won't play them, in 2011 they should automatically be ranked #1 in the preseason, right? I mean if you're afraid of Boise St, it's because you think they're better, right?

And I guess Oregon should be ranked #2 since they're the only ones that will put themselves on the line. Don't expect USC to line up to play Boise St.

No, they shouldn't automatically be ranked #1. Boise State faces a Catch-22.  They play in a below average non-BCS conference and they also play in a system where teams are becoming more reluctant to schedule tough non-conference opponents because of the BCS implications.  For example, playing in the SEC alone amounts to playing two or three "make or break" games a year.  Why make life harder by also scheduling a tough non-BCS team?  Its about bowl payouts, not fearing opponents.  Playing a tough non-conference schedule on top of your conference schedule could mean quite the decrease in bowl revenue coming your way.

Once again, this has nothing about what's going on, on the field. It has everything to do with economics.

Actually Dons, that's not true about the revenue. Conferences share their revenue. Check out my post from earlier:

I have two best friends since childhood. One is a Sports Information Director at an ACC school. The other is an Assistant Athletic Director at a Big 12 school. We were inseparable as kids and when they can get time after the bowls and in the early summer, they come home and we talk shop, shop for them, incessantly over beers at the local tavern or on the links. This BCS conversation is one we talk about ALL THE TIME. The simple fact is this, there isn't a person associated in athletics at a Divsion 1 playing football university in America that doesn't want a playoff system.

Oh, in public they say what they have to say or what they feel will get them in the least amount of trouble, but behind the scenes, there isn't a coach, athletic direct, sports information director or player at a top 40 school that doesn't want a playoff system.

But what the athletes and athletic personnel want and what the deans, presidents, and higher ups that are the power brokers at the university, what the people who run the bowls and parades and festivities associated with the bowls and what the networks want are completely different things. Too many extremely high paying yearly jobs, too much university revenue, too much money is invested in the current structure that getting the people who have the power to elicit change will never happen because there's no guarantee for those people that the monet stream will continue if everything is changed.

Don't forget how the conference money structure works for bowls. If a team from a conference makes a bowl the payout for that bowl does not go directly to the team. It goes into a fund that then is divided among all the teams in the conference.

Take the SEC for instance. They are guaranteed the Sugar bowl for the champ if the champ isn't in the National championship game. They will most likely also get an at large BCS team as well this year. They also have guaranteed births to the Music City Bowl, the Independence Bowl, the Chick-Fil-A Bowl, the Outback Bowl, the Capital One bowl, the PapaJohns.com Bowl, the Cotton Bowl and the Liberty Bowl. But even if they don't get an at large BCS berth they still have 8 guaranteed slots every year. Look at the money they get:

Sugar Bowl   $17,000,000
Music City Bowl   $1,6000,000
Independence Bowl   $1,100,000
Chick-Fil-A Bowl   $2,400,000
Outback Bowl    $3,000,000
Capital One Bowl   $4,250,000
PapaJohns.com Bowl   $300,000
Cotton Bowl   $3,000,000
Liberty Bowl   $1,500,000

So without getting and at large BCS berth the SEC conference with 12 teams is guaranteed to split up, at a minimum, $34.15 million every year. Now take into consideration that in the 11 year BCS history the SEC has gotten an at large bid 6 time and probably will again this year. So 60% of the time the SEC is making around about $15,000,000 more or a total, due to bowls of about $50 million or more than $4 million per school. whether they go to a bowl or not.

No way the SEC university presidents decide to shut off that money stream just to properly crown a champion. And it's the same in the ACC, Big 10, Big East, Big 12 and Pac 10.

You see, the teams in power conferences not wanting to schedule a Boise State has nothing to do with bowl money revenue. All that money is shared in larger power conferences. But it does have everything to do with a couple of other things:

1.) Reciprocation of having to travel to Boise to play a game where the travel costs can get excessive.

2.) The wear and tear of the players themselves who would suffer trying to win a national title if a team scheduled three out of conference foes like Houston, Boise State and another power conference team. The competition in the power conferences is usually so tough that teams need to schedule weaker foes for easy victories.

3.) The perception of BSU being a weak team and having a loss to them look like a bad loss. The advantages of beating a BSU as an out of conference foe just does not outweigh the disadvantages of losing to a BSU in the fickle minds of some of the obviously power conference biased voters. The BCS is great and all but the main part of it still mainly depends upon getting votes in most of the different polls and averaging it all out. Many voters look at a win over a BSU as a supposed foregone conclusion that should have happened to a power conference team and a loss as a really bad upset. In this important manner, it just doesn't pay to schedule them.

My reference with revenue had to do with the fact that a team going to the Fiesta Bowl is going to bring in a lot more money for its conference at itself than if it goes to a second tier or third tier bowl.  There is a HUGE dropoff from making a BCS bowl or not, in regards to $$.  Why make your life harder by scheduling tough, non-conference competition if you don't have to?  

I'm aware that the revenue goes to the conferences.

So what you are saying is that the college makes scheduling decision based more upon trying to bring in the extra revenue to the conference that is generated by only getting an at large bid than they do about making the schedule easier to win a national championship? because that makes no sense to me.

The power conferences are already GUARANTEED a BCS bid and the $17 million payout. They are guaranteed other payouts based on the bowls they are already affiliated with. The only way to garner more money than that for the conference is to win an at-large BCS bid AFTER NOT WINNING their conference.

So to me what you are saying is that they schedule weaker conference foes based primarily on the fact that if they don't win their conference, they will have a still have a good record and get that BCS at large bid to garner more conference money that would them garner them maybe an extra million dollars or so once the monies are divided.

Yeah, sorry, but from what my friends tell me, that's just not true. The teams in the power conferences that schedule weaker foes do it because of other fiscal reasons and for padding the wins and point differential to appeal to voters before they would ever think of scheduling weaker foes based on trying to make sure if they came in second in their conference that the look good enough to get an at large bid. These people plan on winning and the rewards based on that first and foremost.

[Donoghus]

This article speaks to something a poster was saying last week and to what Roy has been saying for 3 weeks.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-boise110709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

It basically says Boise St has called every good team in the country offering to show up and play any time anywhere, without asking for a return trip to Idaho, but every school in the country is afraid to play them. He's specifically asking for 2011.

So if they won't play them, in 2011 they should automatically be ranked #1 in the preseason, right? I mean if you're afraid of Boise St, it's because you think they're better, right?

And I guess Oregon should be ranked #2 since they're the only ones that will put themselves on the line. Don't expect USC to line up to play Boise St.

No, they shouldn't automatically be ranked #1. Boise State faces a Catch-22.  They play in a below average non-BCS conference and they also play in a system where teams are becoming more reluctant to schedule tough non-conference opponents because of the BCS implications.  For example, playing in the SEC alone amounts to playing two or three "make or break" games a year.  Why make life harder by also scheduling a tough non-BCS team?  Its about bowl payouts, not fearing opponents.  Playing a tough non-conference schedule on top of your conference schedule could mean quite the decrease in bowl revenue coming your way.

Once again, this has nothing about what's going on, on the field. It has everything to do with economics.

Actually Dons, that's not true about the revenue. Conferences share their revenue. Check out my post from earlier:

I have two best friends since childhood. One is a Sports Information Director at an ACC school. The other is an Assistant Athletic Director at a Big 12 school. We were inseparable as kids and when they can get time after the bowls and in the early summer, they come home and we talk shop, shop for them, incessantly over beers at the local tavern or on the links. This BCS conversation is one we talk about ALL THE TIME. The simple fact is this, there isn't a person associated in athletics at a Divsion 1 playing football university in America that doesn't want a playoff system.

Oh, in public they say what they have to say or what they feel will get them in the least amount of trouble, but behind the scenes, there isn't a coach, athletic direct, sports information director or player at a top 40 school that doesn't want a playoff system.

But what the athletes and athletic personnel want and what the deans, presidents, and higher ups that are the power brokers at the university, what the people who run the bowls and parades and festivities associated with the bowls and what the networks want are completely different things. Too many extremely high paying yearly jobs, too much university revenue, too much money is invested in the current structure that getting the people who have the power to elicit change will never happen because there's no guarantee for those people that the monet stream will continue if everything is changed.

Don't forget how the conference money structure works for bowls. If a team from a conference makes a bowl the payout for that bowl does not go directly to the team. It goes into a fund that then is divided among all the teams in the conference.

Take the SEC for instance. They are guaranteed the Sugar bowl for the champ if the champ isn't in the National championship game. They will most likely also get an at large BCS team as well this year. They also have guaranteed births to the Music City Bowl, the Independence Bowl, the Chick-Fil-A Bowl, the Outback Bowl, the Capital One bowl, the PapaJohns.com Bowl, the Cotton Bowl and the Liberty Bowl. But even if they don't get an at large BCS berth they still have 8 guaranteed slots every year. Look at the money they get:

Sugar Bowl   $17,000,000
Music City Bowl   $1,6000,000
Independence Bowl   $1,100,000
Chick-Fil-A Bowl   $2,400,000
Outback Bowl    $3,000,000
Capital One Bowl   $4,250,000
PapaJohns.com Bowl   $300,000
Cotton Bowl   $3,000,000
Liberty Bowl   $1,500,000

So without getting and at large BCS berth the SEC conference with 12 teams is guaranteed to split up, at a minimum, $34.15 million every year. Now take into consideration that in the 11 year BCS history the SEC has gotten an at large bid 6 time and probably will again this year. So 60% of the time the SEC is making around about $15,000,000 more or a total, due to bowls of about $50 million or more than $4 million per school. whether they go to a bowl or not.

No way the SEC university presidents decide to shut off that money stream just to properly crown a champion. And it's the same in the ACC, Big 10, Big East, Big 12 and Pac 10.

You see, the teams in power conferences not wanting to schedule a Boise State has nothing to do with bowl money revenue. All that money is shared in larger power conferences. But it does have everything to do with a couple of other things:

1.) Reciprocation of having to travel to Boise to play a game where the travel costs can get excessive.

2.) The wear and tear of the players themselves who would suffer trying to win a national title if a team scheduled three out of conference foes like Houston, Boise State and another power conference team. The competition in the power conferences is usually so tough that teams need to schedule weaker foes for easy victories.

3.) The perception of BSU being a weak team and having a loss to them look like a bad loss. The advantages of beating a BSU as an out of conference foe just does not outweigh the disadvantages of losing to a BSU in the fickle minds of some of the obviously power conference biased voters. The BCS is great and all but the main part of it still mainly depends upon getting votes in most of the different polls and averaging it all out. Many voters look at a win over a BSU as a supposed foregone conclusion that should have happened to a power conference team and a loss as a really bad upset. In this important manner, it just doesn't pay to schedule them.

My reference with revenue had to do with the fact that a team going to the Fiesta Bowl is going to bring in a lot more money for its conference at itself than if it goes to a second tier or third tier bowl.  There is a HUGE dropoff from making a BCS bowl or not, in regards to $$.  Why make your life harder by scheduling tough, non-conference competition if you don't have to?  

I'm aware that the revenue goes to the conferences.

So what you are saying is that the college makes scheduling decision based more upon trying to bring in the extra revenue to the conference that is generated by only getting an at large bid than they do about making the schedule easier to win a national championship? because that makes no sense to me.

The power conferences are already GUARANTEED a BCS bid and the $17 million payout. They are guaranteed other payouts based on the bowls they are already affiliated with. The only way to garner more money than that for the conference is to win an at-large BCS bid AFTER NOT WINNING their conference.

So to me what you are saying is that they schedule weaker conference foes based primarily on the fact that if they don't win their conference, they will have a still have a good record and get that BCS at large bid to garner more conference money that would them garner them maybe an extra million dollars or so once the monies are divided.

Yeah, sorry, but from what my friends tell me, that's just not true. The teams in the power conferences that schedule weaker foes do it because of other fiscal reasons and for padding the wins and point differential to appeal to voters before they would ever think of scheduling weaker foes based on trying to make sure if they came in second in their conference that the look good enough to get an at large bid. These people plan on winning and the rewards based on that first and foremost.

Obviously, a school wants to win a national championship.  That's a no brainer.  Scheduling a tough non-conference opponent is just going to make things more difficult if you're already playing a brutal conference schedule in the SEC, for example.  Why punish yourselves more?  If you're playing in the SEC, you're going to have a strong strength of schedule regardless of who you play out of conference.

These conference do already have tie-ins to bowls.  The one thing they don't have is the automatic ability to place a team besides their conference champion in a high paying BCS bowl as a at-large bid.  This is where I think some scheduling comes into play.  Padding your tough conference schedule with a couple of non-conference cupcakes is going to help ensure you're in the discussion for an at-large bid more so than risking it. 

Its going to garner them more than an extra million or so if they're playing in the Sugar Bowl as an at-large than if they're playing in the Chick-Fil-A Bowl or Outback Bowl. 

These athletic directors who work on the scheduling know exactly how much money is on the line when they schedule future opponents.  Notre Dame, for sure, know it since they're an independant (I know every game is a non-conference game here but the idea is the same) and don't have to deal with the revenue sharing aspects like conference teams. 

It has to do with winning but its nieve to think that economics isn't at play too.

[Roy Hobbs]

I think Alabama just lucked out on that non-interception.  Tough call, but I think he was in-bounds.

Still, Roll Tide.

[nickagneta]

Actually, Dons, that thinking is counter-productive. If two or three big conference power houses all have one loss seasons, the BCS is going to go with the team that has the tougher schedule as SOS and Power Rating is all figured into that. So if you have three teams all with one loss, all from power conferences and two of them are teams like Texas, LSU, and/or Florida and they are being considered against a one loss team like Ohio State or USC, teams that annually make sure they play one, two or three really tough out of conference opponents, I think the team going will be the one with the tougher out of conference schedule.

Economics make a difference but what I'm telling you, knowing people in very high positions in the athletic departments at two power conference schools, is those decisions have almost nothing to do with the economics of bowl money because of the way the monies are distributed.

A team like Wake Forest or Kansas State or  Miss. State who know they stand next to no chance of winning a conference championship do not schedule weaker non-conference competition because they hope to make more money for the conference by getting at large bids. They do it to make the schedule easier and pad their winning percentage to look better for voters.

The teams that have major championship credibility, schedule weaker foes because they know that their reputation and and impressive record will get them far when it comes to national voters. But ultimately, it is the teams that travel well and who schedule tougher opponents and are really good that get those at large bids.

[Eja117]

This article speaks to something a poster was saying last week and to what Roy has been saying for 3 weeks.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-boise110709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

It basically says Boise St has called every good team in the country offering to show up and play any time anywhere, without asking for a return trip to Idaho, but every school in the country is afraid to play them. He's specifically asking for 2011.

So if they won't play them, in 2011 they should automatically be ranked #1 in the preseason, right? I mean if you're afraid of Boise St, it's because you think they're better, right?

And I guess Oregon should be ranked #2 since they're the only ones that will put themselves on the line. Don't expect USC to line up to play Boise St.

No, they shouldn't automatically be ranked #1. Boise State faces a Catch-22.  They play in a below average non-BCS conference and they also play in a system where teams are becoming more reluctant to schedule tough non-conference opponents because of the BCS implications.  For example, playing in the SEC alone amounts to playing two or three "make or break" games a year.  Why make life harder by also scheduling a tough non-BCS team?  Its about bowl payouts, not fearing opponents.  Playing a tough non-conference schedule on top of your conference schedule could mean quite the decrease in bowl revenue coming your way.

Once again, this has nothing about what's going on, on the field. It has everything to do with economics.

I don't believe in catch-22s.

Do you want your team to be national champs or not? Is there an advantage to such a thing?  Then why not play BSU from little old Idaho? Otherwise you're just another also-ran trying to get lucky. I bet Texas wishes it had scheduled one tough non-con game last year. But they didn't so they lost out on the national championship game.  Oops.

[Rondo2287]

How sick are the new TCU uniforms that they are busting out for the Utah game this weekend?

http://procombat.nikemedia.com/index.php?team=texas_christian#/photos

[nickagneta]

The Nebraska Cornhuskers today continue their way through the Big12 North and will beat Kansas. After they sweep the rest of the season it's off to upset Texas in the Big 12 Championship and a BCS Bowl bid in the Orange Bowl.

Can't wait. GO BIG RED!!! GO HUSKERS!!!

[Donoghus]

Games I'm keeping an eye on today:

Utah v. TCU- Can TCU keep it up?  Ranked #4 right now, there are in prime position to grab a BCS bid as long as they don't slip up. 

Notre Dame v. Pitt- Charlie Weis could very well be on his last legs.

Clemson v. NC State- Herbstreit's upset watch.  Clemson controls its fate in the ACC Atlantic but has BC hot on its heels.

BC v. Virginia- BC is currently #2 in the ACC Atlantic due to losing a tiebreaker with Clemson.  They need to keep winning if they want any shot at another ACC Championship Game appearance.   

Iowa v. Ohio St.- HUGE Big 10 showdown.  Control of the conference and BCS automatic bid could very well be on the line.

[nickagneta]

Games I'm keeping an eye on today:

Utah v. TCU- Can TCU keep it up?  Ranked #4 right now, there are in prime position to grab a BCS bid as long as they don't slip up. 

Notre Dame v. Pitt- Charlie Weis could very well be on his last legs.

Clemson v. NC State- Herbstreit's upset watch.  Clemson controls its fate in the ACC Atlantic but has BC hot on its heels.

BC v. Virginia- BC is currently #2 in the ACC Atlantic due to losing a tiebreaker with Clemson.  They need to keep winning if they want any shot at another ACC Championship Game appearance.   

Iowa v. Ohio St.- HUGE Big 10 showdown.  Control of the conference and BCS automatic bid could very well be on the line.

I agree with Herb and am watching the game now. NC State will upset Clemson and give BC the edge to going to another ACC Championship. I think the best team in the ACC is most definitely G Tech, thought and I think BC would get smoked in yet another ACC Championship.

I say watch out for Stanford beating USC as well.

[Donoghus]

Games I'm keeping an eye on today:

Utah v. TCU- Can TCU keep it up?  Ranked #4 right now, there are in prime position to grab a BCS bid as long as they don't slip up. 

Notre Dame v. Pitt- Charlie Weis could very well be on his last legs.

Clemson v. NC State- Herbstreit's upset watch.  Clemson controls its fate in the ACC Atlantic but has BC hot on its heels.

BC v. Virginia- BC is currently #2 in the ACC Atlantic due to losing a tiebreaker with Clemson.  They need to keep winning if they want any shot at another ACC Championship Game appearance.   

Iowa v. Ohio St.- HUGE Big 10 showdown.  Control of the conference and BCS automatic bid could very well be on the line.

I agree with Herb and am watching the game now. NC State will upset Clemson and give BC the edge to going to another ACC Championship. I think the best team in the ACC is most definitely G Tech, thought and I think BC would get smoked in yet another ACC Championship.

I say watch out for Stanford beating USC as well.

I do agree that G-Tech would most likely smoke BC in a potential ACC Championship Game.  Still wouldn't mind seeing the Eagles get there especially after last offseason's turmoil and the zero expectations for this squad going into the season. 

[nickagneta]

Games I'm keeping an eye on today:

Utah v. TCU- Can TCU keep it up?  Ranked #4 right now, there are in prime position to grab a BCS bid as long as they don't slip up. 

Notre Dame v. Pitt- Charlie Weis could very well be on his last legs.

Clemson v. NC State- Herbstreit's upset watch.  Clemson controls its fate in the ACC Atlantic but has BC hot on its heels.

BC v. Virginia- BC is currently #2 in the ACC Atlantic due to losing a tiebreaker with Clemson.  They need to keep winning if they want any shot at another ACC Championship Game appearance.   

Iowa v. Ohio St.- HUGE Big 10 showdown.  Control of the conference and BCS automatic bid could very well be on the line.

I agree with Herb and am watching the game now. NC State will upset Clemson and give BC the edge to going to another ACC Championship. I think the best team in the ACC is most definitely G Tech, thought and I think BC would get smoked in yet another ACC Championship.

I say watch out for Stanford beating USC as well.

I do agree that G-Tech would most likely smoke BC in a potential ACC Championship Game.  Still wouldn't mind seeing the Eagles get there especially after last offseason's turmoil and the zero expectations for this squad going into the season. 

Here's the problem with BC getting to the championship and losing, it doesn't guarantee them the #2 seed in the ACC and the better bowl bid. The #2 team in the ACC is supposed to go to the Chick-fil-A Bowl but they have the right to dump a clear, not #2 team if there is a question of draw and how a team travels. BC travels very poorly.

So Chick-fil-A could select Clemson, a fairly local team who travels real well, the Champs bowl in Orlando would probably take Miami as they are a local team, and BC would be fighting to get the Music City Bowl with VTech or looking at the Humanitarian Bowl.

[Donoghus]

Games I'm keeping an eye on today:

Utah v. TCU- Can TCU keep it up?  Ranked #4 right now, there are in prime position to grab a BCS bid as long as they don't slip up. 

Notre Dame v. Pitt- Charlie Weis could very well be on his last legs.

Clemson v. NC State- Herbstreit's upset watch.  Clemson controls its fate in the ACC Atlantic but has BC hot on its heels.

BC v. Virginia- BC is currently #2 in the ACC Atlantic due to losing a tiebreaker with Clemson.  They need to keep winning if they want any shot at another ACC Championship Game appearance.   

Iowa v. Ohio St.- HUGE Big 10 showdown.  Control of the conference and BCS automatic bid could very well be on the line.

I agree with Herb and am watching the game now. NC State will upset Clemson and give BC the edge to going to another ACC Championship. I think the best team in the ACC is most definitely G Tech, thought and I think BC would get smoked in yet another ACC Championship.

I say watch out for Stanford beating USC as well.

I do agree that G-Tech would most likely smoke BC in a potential ACC Championship Game.  Still wouldn't mind seeing the Eagles get there especially after last offseason's turmoil and the zero expectations for this squad going into the season. 

Here's the problem with BC getting to the championship and losing, it doesn't guarantee them the #2 seed in the ACC and the better bowl bid. The #2 team in the ACC is supposed to go to the Chick-fil-A Bowl but they have the right to dump a clear, not #2 team if there is a question of draw and how a team travels. BC travels very poorly.

So Chick-fil-A could select Clemson, a fairly local team who travels real well, the Champs bowl in Orlando would probably take Miami as they are a local team, and BC would be fighting to get the Music City Bowl with VTech or looking at the Humanitarian Bowl.

No, I agree with that and wasn't making that implication. What I was saying is: in terms of the expectations for this team going into the season, making it to the ACC Championship Game and even having a shot at a BCS game is a HUGE accomplishment in my book.  What Spaz has done with this team, this year is nothing short of amazing. 

If I was a betting man, I say they most likely end up in San Francisco in the Emerald Bowl. 

[nickagneta]

Games I'm keeping an eye on today:

Utah v. TCU- Can TCU keep it up?  Ranked #4 right now, there are in prime position to grab a BCS bid as long as they don't slip up. 

Notre Dame v. Pitt- Charlie Weis could very well be on his last legs.

Clemson v. NC State- Herbstreit's upset watch.  Clemson controls its fate in the ACC Atlantic but has BC hot on its heels.

BC v. Virginia- BC is currently #2 in the ACC Atlantic due to losing a tiebreaker with Clemson.  They need to keep winning if they want any shot at another ACC Championship Game appearance.   

Iowa v. Ohio St.- HUGE Big 10 showdown.  Control of the conference and BCS automatic bid could very well be on the line.

I agree with Herb and am watching the game now. NC State will upset Clemson and give BC the edge to going to another ACC Championship. I think the best team in the ACC is most definitely G Tech, thought and I think BC would get smoked in yet another ACC Championship.

I say watch out for Stanford beating USC as well.

I do agree that G-Tech would most likely smoke BC in a potential ACC Championship Game.  Still wouldn't mind seeing the Eagles get there especially after last offseason's turmoil and the zero expectations for this squad going into the season. 

Here's the problem with BC getting to the championship and losing, it doesn't guarantee them the #2 seed in the ACC and the better bowl bid. The #2 team in the ACC is supposed to go to the Chick-fil-A Bowl but they have the right to dump a clear, not #2 team if there is a question of draw and how a team travels. BC travels very poorly.

So Chick-fil-A could select Clemson, a fairly local team who travels real well, the Champs bowl in Orlando would probably take Miami as they are a local team, and BC would be fighting to get the Music City Bowl with VTech or looking at the Humanitarian Bowl.

No, I agree with that and wasn't making that implication. What I was saying is: in terms of the expectations for this team going into the season, making it to the ACC Championship Game and even having a shot at a BCS game is a HUGE accomplishment in my book.  What Spaz has done with this team, this year is nothing short of amazing. 

If I was a betting man, I say they most likely end up in San Francisco in the Emerald Bowl. 

Absolutely agree. He's taken a team expected to be bottom third of the league and catapulted it towards the top third. Excellent job and his youth, especially defensively, is outstanding. Of course I say that with no bias whatsoever as my hometown high school will probably have to kids starting in the BC defensive backfield for the next 2-3 years in Isaac Johnson and Jim Noels.