College Football 2009 Season thread~!

[Lowerdeck]

I wish Boise would play in a better conference, or the WAC would step their game up to start giving Boise some interesting games.

And UCLA and the Washington schools are probably equal to a fairly decent WAC school.

[DMN in the House]

UCLA is better than everyone in the WAC except Boise. *maybe* Fresno and LaTech, but I haven't seen them play at all this season. UCLA's defense is actually pretty good, and the offense is coming around. They're competitive, just not there yet.

[Lowerdeck]

I was surprised to have seen (well, heard on the radio in the postgame show) UCLA come back from a 16-0 and 19-3 deficit and tie the game against OSU in the 4th. But well, I tuned in to the game right before James Rodgers got that touchdown leading to the OSU win.

[Hajjhowe]

Boise should move to the Mountain West with Fresno, it'd make them as good as some BCS conference with the two Utah school's & TCU added in. The WAC is pretty poor though. Fresno State would be more respectable if they would actually win a close game against the big names they face every year instead of losing in heartbreaking defeat. The rest of the conference is pretty meh (Hawaii is on a downslide, Nevada are inconsistent year to year & everyone else is pretty crap).

I don't think Boise would be undefeated in the PAC-10, but they are one of the best teams in the country and could certainly compete in that or any other BCS conference in my opinion.

[HailtotheYo]

Oregon would stomp Boise right now, and if Boise played Oregon's schedule, they wouldn't be undefeated. Half the teams in the Pac 10 would have, at most, one loss with Boise's schedule, and that loss would be to Oregon.

Would ? Maybe, maybe not. What we KNOW, is that they didn't when they did step on the field. They lost.

Bitch about their schedule all you want but they can't help the conference they are in (at the moment). They've only been Division 1 in football for like 10-12 years. There's a reason the games are played. You can speculate all you'd like but you have no way of knowing what would happen against other teams unless they actually face each other. That's where Boise St has an argument. They're finally getting the games, and they're winning them. They don't have to say "would, could, if, but" because they ARE beating BCS schools.

Want them to play more "quality" ? Then tell Arizona St to answer the phone when Boise St calls instead of scheduling 1-AA Idaho St.

Boise St can only put on their schedule, who'll agree to play them. Recently it's been Oregon and Oregon State, and Boise has been beating them. Next year they get VT. Don't throw this crap out there when the schools is actively seeking out "better" competition (in order to jump through hoops mind you), but can't schedule anything because the Arizona St's of the world are scared of the game.

Hell, UCLA would have one loss, and we fucking suck. Speaking of which, don't ever tell me how great the SEC is, since UCLA can't win a game in the Pac 10, and they beat Tennessee, who's, at least, competitive in the SEC.

We aren't going to talk about how great the Pac10 is either right ? Because Stanford, who is 4-2 in the Pac can't even beat that 4-5 ACC powerhouse Wake Forest ....

Come on, you really wanna do this ? We all know that kind of comparison game is just dumb.

Edited November 2, 2009 by HailtotheKing

[DMN in the House]

We all know I just like to give SEC fan shit. As for Boise, no matter who is at fault, when there are other undefeated schools with better schedules, then yes, I can say that excludes them. We don't really know how good they are, they caught Oregon early, then struggled with UC Davis.

[ACCBiggz]

because the Arizona St's of the world are scared of the game.

This is an outright false statement thrown out by fans.

Arizona State is not a national contender and have nothing to gain from playing this game. They'll be seen because of being in the Pac-10. What benefits ASU and other schools like Florida scheduling smaller schools? Another home game. Period. It's a business decision, and a good one. 42,588 was the attendance for the game, at an average of $40 a ticket (estimate) that's pocketing the athletic department, not the team, - who schedules the games - 1.7 million dollars, not including parking, merch, and concessions (and this is an even higher total for the likes of Ohio State, Florida, etc. as they have a higher average ticket price and more attendance). Pay a 1-AA school a couple hundred grand, pocket over one million for the athletic department's budget.

It's as simple as that. Has absolutely nothing to do with being scared. They do not gain anything from playing Boise, all that happens is they lose a home game for the next season which hurts their overall budget as about only 10-20 athletic departments profit money, so every school tries desperately to make ends meat. And that's all they are trying to do.

Let me edit in this: So why do Alabama/VT, USC/OSU play? Because those early season national TV games earn BOTH schools money. Alabama/VT earned EACH school over $2 million dollars. Despite what reporters may say, they aren't taking those games to improve their rankings because they'll have those either way as history shows us. They take the game for the paycheck to help their department. It's lucrative, it's smart, and it's why.

Edited November 2, 2009 by ACCBiggz

[HailtotheYo]

because the Arizona St's of the world are scared of the game.

This is an outright false statement thrown out by fans.

No, it isn't. While a bit of an overstatement, it was just making a point. A point, that stands as true. Ask Hawaii when they tried to schedule Pac10 schools 3-5 years ago. Ask Fresno St the same thing. NOBODY wanted to schedule them. Or maybe ask TCU about beating Oklahoma in Norman and then having Oklahoma back out of the return date ... just to "allow" TCU to come back to Norman in a few years. Whoops, that didn't work, pay 'em to get out and move on. Yes, part of that is due to what everything is all about now (more below), but the other part is that NOBODY wants this game on their schedule because they don't want to be in the position Oregon could find themselves in at the end of the year. Pac10 Champ, one loss ... to Boise St. That's fact. Yeah, the "big" schools wills schedule 1-AA teams (which is joke in the context of the BCS debate) and extremely lower end schools (Sun Belt) but WILL NOT take on the Fresno's/Boise's of the world. Why ? Because they can't afford (in any way) to lose that game. "Scared" doesn't literally mean "shaking and afraid of." It merely means they don't want that risk.

Arizona State is not a national contender and have nothing to gain from playing this game. They'll be seen because of being in the Pac-10. What benefits ASU and other schools like Florida scheduling smaller schools? Another home game. Period. It's a business decision, and a good one. 42,588 was the attendance for the game, at an average of $40 a ticket (estimate) that's pocketing the athletic department, not the team, - who schedules the games - 1.7 million dollars, not including parking, merch, and concessions (and this is an even higher total for the likes of Ohio State, Florida, etc. as they have a higher average ticket price and more attendance). Pay a 1-AA school a couple hundred grand, pocket over one million for the athletic department's budget.

ASU not being a national contender has absolutely zero to do with it. You've stated what it's about, and it's bullshit. It's also a completely different discussion than what we're having. I'm talking on the BCS (and division between the CFB teams) NOT the fact that it has turned into nothing but a business. Believe it or not there are still people out there that are fans of the game, and care about it regardless of the paychecks these teams/conferences get. Sure, it pads the pocketbooks but it also pads the stats/win loss column. That aids them in getting a better bowl games which aids in money as well. Do they want the extra home game ? Of course. Do they want the better Bowl game ? Of course, and scheduling the likes of Boise St isn't condusive to that. However, I'm not talking about the business of it because that is exactly what has ruined the entire thing. The BCS is about money, and money alone. NOT about actually crowning a National Champion and rewarding the best teams in CFB. I'm not talking about the business, I'm talking about the game.

The rest of your post is about what the BCS is about: money. I can see now why you like the BCS. You think just like they do.

It's as simple as that. Has absolutely nothing to do with being scared. They do not gain anything from playing Boise, all that happens is they lose a home game for the next season which hurts their overall budget as about only 10-20 athletic departments profit money, so every school tries desperately to make ends meat. And that's all they are trying to do.

Let me edit in this: So why do Alabama/VT, USC/OSU play? Because those early season national TV games earn BOTH schools money. Alabama/VT earned EACH school over $2 million dollars. Despite what reporters may say, they aren't taking those games to improve their rankings because they'll have those either way as history shows us. They take the game for the paycheck to help their department. It's lucrative, it's smart, and it's why.

Hypocrisy sucks. We'll hold your head under the water because you don't play competition we deem worthy enough, however don't try to play us though because we've got 247 other sports to support. Hey, you made it all about business but suck at said business. That's not Boise St's fault. Sob story someone else. I have no sympathy for a "major" college not scheduling someone because they're "worried about the athletic department budget." That's just a bullshit answer.

An '04-'05 report showed that 90% of D1 athletics programs spend more than they earn [cite: Knight Commission report] There were 22 self containing schools: "The report did not identify the 22 self-sustaining schools, though commission members indicated they were all among the college football superpowers." So why then are those big time schools playing each other ? They're already self sustaining. I know you aren't ignorant enough to believe that the ONLY thing they played those games for, was money. If you are though, I'm sorry.

Also, from the NCAA website fiscal data report = “If you’re not selling a bunch of tickets and you don’t have a large alumni/booster base making contributions, and you’re not in the right conference, you have very little chance of showing net positive revenue,” he said. “Schools that (have revenues over expenses) are selling a lot of football tickets, and schools that do are more than likely in conferences that send two teams to BCS bowls every year and six or seven teams to the men’s basketball championship.

“That combination works for about two dozen schools. Otherwise it’s probably not going to happen.” Hey, you made your bed, now lay in it.

also in the report = "Interestingly, the data over the four-year period – and across all Division I subdivisions – show that general operating expenses for a Division I program seem to hover around $8 million. In other words, most schools appear willing to allocate that $8 million, and then those schools’ athletics departments spend whatever revenue they generate over and above that figure. Obviously, the schools that generate revenue above expenses have much more to spend.

Uh, so over a four year period the general operating expenses for Division 1 Subdivisions is 8m for a D1 program. 8m. Do you even want to get into payouts/conference tv distributions/etc and such and try to explain how 90% of the programs hemmorage money when the average is about 8m ?

Yeah this is where I need to stop,so if you want to talk about business ... I'm dropping out of the conversation. If you want to talk about the game, then I'm up for it.

[DMN in the House]

Don't tar us all with the same brush. I'm a fan of UCLA, and you'll find it hard to criticize their scheduling.

[DMN in the House]

Don't tar us all with the same brush. I'm a fan of UCLA, and you'll find it hard to criticize their scheduling.

[HailtotheYo]

Actually, UCLA is one of the better BCS schools in terms of scheduling. You've got a running thing with SDSU, but other than that you've played Rice twice in the last few years. That's not bad at all. You usually play at least one pre-season top 25, and a team that is arguably that good.

The tar brush includes you all however, because it is the BCS Conferences that is on the other side of the fence from me.

[ACCBiggz]

If you want to talk about the game, then I'm up for it.

The business is the game. ASU, Florida, OSU, etc. and on down the line make their decisions based on business - not on the field. And I'm not ignorant, I know that athletic departments lose money as I stated and you showed the actual NCAA number of 22 schools only supporting themselves. That is nothing new in the slightest. Athletic departments at all levels lose money and is why they look for any way possible to make money. The small schools love the couple hundred grand they make from traveling up, and the D-1 schools love the home game revenue. They could care less about scheduling Boise State in a Home/Away because they'll lose that home game the next season which hurts them. Why did teams refuse to play Hawaii? Not because they were competitive, but because they would have to travel to Hawaii for an away game. Why pay to send over 100 people to Hawaii when you can play a home game and bank multi-million dollars? That's just ridiculous to suggest. And again using the OU/TCU argument, sure they lost but if you notice even in what you said - backed out of the AWAY game, allowed them to come back for the HOME game. These teams don't want to go on the road and lose a lucrative home game. Period.

however don't try to play us though because we've got 247 other sports to support.

That's a bit of an exaggeration to make your point. Especially since because they are not saying what you stated. They have extra money from being so profitable so they create opportunities for other sports, including Title IX compliance.

The Ohio State University:

Men's Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Cheerleading

Cross Country

Fencing

Football

Golf

Gymnastics

Ice Hockey

Lacrosse

Pistol

Rifle

Soccer

Swim/Dive

Tennis

Track & Field

Volleyball

Wrestling

Women's Sports

Basketball

Cheerleading

Cross Country

Fencing

Field Hockey

Golf

Gymnastics

Ice Hockey

Lacrosse

Pistol

Rifle

Rowing

Soccer

Softball

Swim/Dive

Synchronized Swim

Tennis

Track & Field

Volleyball

Some sports are a cross over and are lumped together (Cross country, track, swimming/diving, etc.) If you count they offer "18" different opportunities for male sports, including such as cheerleading which is dominated by female participants. Women's Crew/Rowing is a new phenomenon in female athletics as we've seen many programs open up across the midwest/east to offer another female opportunity. I had a friend who was in band her entire high school career, no athletics... she goes to Purdue, sees Crew offered and signs up. It's a Title IX program. The other part is having the facilities to do programs such as swimming/diving, etc.

Boise State

Men

Basketball

Cross Country

Football

Golf

Tennis

Track & Field

Wrestling

Women

Basketball

Cross Country

Golf

Gymnastics

Soccer

Softball

Swimming & Diving

Tennis

Track & Field

Volleyball

Less programs? Sure, but also less income, less facilities, and are building their athletics division. The Ohio State University, Florida, USC, etc. have storied programs that they have built up over time. It's not like one day they said, "Hey, we are going to throw over 100 million dollars in to athletics." Doesn't work like that. I mean, the Boise State football program was formerly a D1-AA program in the not to distant past. It's not like they've had a huge program earning a lot of money like the other profitable programs we have today. To compare them side by side to the powerhouses and then complain and bitch and moan about how unfair it is, well, is very naive.

I can see now why you like the BCS. You think just like they do.

Oh please, get off your high horse. I've stated why I like the BCS in the past. To say I think just like they do because I disagree with your notion and pointed out the business aspect of why they choose not to give up a home game to play in Idaho, makes me chuckle and feel sad. My reason for liking the BCS is that it pits the #1 and #2 teams against one another. Is the system perfect? No. But, in my opinion, a playoff is a much much worse decision and only rewards mediocrity on the field. If anything the system of the BCS (in terms of rankings) is unbiased. It's a formula using computers and 2/3 human vote, if anything the error falls on human voting which is very much regionalized even in the AP. I understand the other rules that push Boise/TCU out of BCS bowl games, but my reason for liking the BCS is ONLY about crowning a national champion. I could care less if Boise State or TCU get a Rose, Orange, Fiesta, or Sugar bid. That makes no difference to me, and if they earn it - they deserve it. Is it hard for them to earn it in comparison? Yes. That's the nature of the beast. It may seem unfair, but so is life. Might be harsh, but it's reality.

"Interestingly, the data over the four-year period – and across all Division I subdivisions – show that general operating expenses for a Division I program seem to hover around $8 million. In other words, most schools appear willing to allocate that $8 million, and then those schools’ athletics departments spend whatever revenue they generate over and above that figure. Obviously, the schools that generate revenue above expenses have much more to spend.

I am currently doing a budgeting project for Troy University. For 07-08 their expenditures for the entire athletic department was $7,259,396. What about revenue? $4,183,277. The state has to cover the rest. It's the cost of doing business, and is why the self-supporting programs are able to get away with a lot more, they answer to themselves. When OSU wants to spend X dollars on something, they just go to the athletic department and make sure its doable, when Troy or another small program wants to... it's much more difficult because that balance must be covered by the state.

Ohio University recently (past 20 years) have done things just like this. They added a new press box to Peden Stadium, which under law falls on them to fund themselves... except the fact that they stated they were putting offices and classrooms in there and thus, the state paid for it. Soon after completion, they suddenly "found room" for those classes and it became an athletics only facility. Very shrewd. Ethical? Different topic. But they aren't the only ones.

The other question that all of this brings up is that the NCAA is a VOLUNTARY organization. They have rules that for D-1 you must have X amount of programs (I believe 18). So for all the programs losing money, why would they want to be in NCAA? Nothing is forcing them to. That comes down to the philosophical views of the insitutions themselves. No one is forcing any of these schools to be in the NCAA and lose money on athletics. And the statement of not worrying about their budget is fairly paper thin. EVERY athletic department is worried about their budgets, especially over the past few years of tough economic times. We've seen major BCS conference teams drop top programs becuase of the cost. Is OSU/USC/UF/OU less worried than BSU/TCU/Troy/etc. of course, but that doesn't mean they aren't worried. Saying otherwise is blind to the nature of the fiscal aspects of sport and their departments. Every program, every business, every university are looking at their bottom lines anda re constantly concerned.

With that said, I'm done with all of this.

Edited November 2, 2009 by ACCBiggz

[HailtotheYo]

I'm not on a high horse. You tried to defend the BCS/BCS schools and their scheduling with aspects of money and "the other programs" in the athletic department. Yes, you do think like they do. While you might have other reasons for liking it, that doesn't take away from the fact that you have a very similar thought pattern as "them." In terms of the dollar your last two posts are completely relevant. In terms of the game on the field it isn't. You can't give me a reason for a "big" school not to schedule that doesn't deal with money. It's a joke, plain and simple. I love it, you go from talking about the teams not wanting to give up the money from one home game and programs losing money to "they have extra money from being so profitable they create other opportunities and Title IX compliance." Fantastic. You should be a politician. It comes down to you liking a system based on and rooted in money in order to determine the CFB national champion, and I don't.

I'm merely talking on the "sporting" aspect of it all since that's what it's supposed to be about. That's also why I watch the game. Hell, if you really are that much better why even schedule a team not in a BCS conference ? I mean they aren't good enough to be a part of your club, so why should you even be allowed to play them at all ? Wait, they're good enough for an extra home game and a million dollar payday for you but when all of a sudden they're winning games they aren't up to your level .... yeah, it's a fucking joke. Besides how can you say a system is inbiased if it's comprised 2/3 of a human element ? That in of itself is wrong.

While the system before had its own set of issues it also had one thing that the BCS doesn't. That is a completely fair chance for every team at the start of the year. Nobody had an issue that BYU won the national title in '84, but now all of a sudden they have an issue with them even making the national title game ? What changed all of a sudden ? If anything parity has grown the number of quality teams as opposed to back then.

You said it "every university are looking at their bottom lines" .... and there in lies about 90% of the problem. "Is it hard for them to earn it in comparison? Yes. That's the nature of the beast." No, it's the nature of the beast created by the BCS Conferences and their only concern ... the bottom line.

Let's move the discussion forward. What is it about a playoff that you don't like ? How does it reward mediocrity ? Only the "top" teams would even qualify for the playoffs to begin with and those teams would certainly be determined by the same rankings that make up the BCS. What is bad about allowing the teams to actually play to determine who is better ?

Even further, are you just opposed to playoffs in D1 college football or against playoffs period ?

[HailtotheYo]

this week should help flesh some things out:

Boise St @ LT [if there's a slip up game this is it .. Boise doesn't travel to Ruston well historically, but I don't see it being a problem this year]

NW @ Iowa [i can absolutely see NW winning this ... can Iowa finally beat someone or will Maradona continue to grace them]

LSU @ 'Bama [how lovely it would be for a wrench to be thrown here]

Oregon @ Stanford [after last week nobody will give the fighting Trees a chance ... but Oregon had better show up]

WF @ GT [if GT stumbles like they did last week with Vandy, WF is good enough to pull out the upset ... but I don't think it'll happen]

OSU @ PennST [a second loss for Penn St would be perfect as the buckeyes already have 2]

UConn @ Cincy [if you've paid attention this year, you know that UConn is a good team and are literally just a few points away from having a MUCH better record]

[JStarr]

Boise State can't even buy a road game, not even with ESPN apparently trying to pimp the deal.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/boisestatefootball/story/960289.html

Yep, I'm still firmly in the "BCS Should Die Screaming In A Fire" camp.

Boise's gotten to the point that beating them would instantly jumpstart a BCS conference mid-level team's credibility. If I'm somebody like Michigan or Tennessee or South Florida, hell yes, I take that call. If you lose...well, it's Boise State, and they are in fact legit. Besides, none of those teams are realistic national contenders yet, anyway. If you win, you're almost automatically in the Top 25 if you weren't already.

God, these AD's are such pussies sometimes. Wonder if TCU's having all the same problems?

[Meacon Keaton]

I'm going to Notre Dame Stadium Saturday to watch my beloved Irish take on Navy. I'm stoaked. And Michael Floyd is cleared to play!

[Blaze09]

I think we are due for an upset weekend this week

[GhostMachine]

Boise State can't even buy a road game, not even with ESPN apparently trying to pimp the deal.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/boisestatefootball/story/960289.html

Yep, I'm still firmly in the "BCS Should Die Screaming In A Fire" camp.

Boise's gotten to the point that beating them would instantly jumpstart a BCS conference mid-level team's credibility. If I'm somebody like Michigan or Tennessee or South Florida, hell yes, I take that call. If you lose...well, it's Boise State, and they are in fact legit. Besides, none of those teams are realistic national contenders yet, anyway. If you win, you're almost automatically in the Top 25 if you weren't already.

God, these AD's are such pussies sometimes. Wonder if TCU's having all the same problems?

If you think the BCS is bad, you should see what's going on with high school football here in Tennessee now. They've come up with some stupid thing called Plan Z or something like that which has to do with spots and seedings in the state's championship tournament, and it not only has teams with losing records in, but it even has one team that only has 1 win in it! The tournament was also designed to reduce travel, but it actually has a few teams travelling hundreds of miles to play (one team has to travel around 185 miles and another team over 240) in it. Plus a lot of the seedings do not make any sense.

So basically I think they tried to model it after the BCS but make it even worse.

Personally, I think its crappy that teams won't give Boise State a game - especially with Boise State not asking for a home game in return. Abd I hope the names of the teams who refused gets leaked eventually. Pussies.

Tennessee vs. Boise State would be interesting - as long as it happens here in Knoxville or in a bowl game somewhere if they ever play. Blue is my favorite color, but it looks horrible on a football field. There IS such as thing as too much blue, and you see it whenever Boise State plays at home.

[JStarr]

If you think the BCS is bad, you should see what's going on with high school football here in Tennessee now. They've come up with some stupid thing called Plan Z or something like that which has to do with spots and seedings in the state's championship tournament, and it not only has teams with losing records in, but it even has one team that only has 1 win in it! The tournament was also designed to reduce travel, but it actually has a few teams travelling hundreds of miles to play (one team has to travel around 185 miles and another team over 240) in it. Plus a lot of the seedings do not make any sense.

So basically I think they tried to model it after the BCS but make it even worse.

Yeah, heard all about it. Either throw everybody in with a chance to go to state or cut it off at a somewhat exclusive number. Sounds like Tennessee's trying to have that both ways.

Tennessee vs. Boise State would be interesting - as long as it happens here in Knoxville or in a bowl game somewhere if they ever play. Blue is my favorite color, but it looks horrible on a football field. There IS such as thing as too much blue, and you see it whenever Boise State plays at home.

As I've said before, I love Boise State's field. Even if I do have to wear shades to watch the game. Their highlight video should be set to a Corey Hart song.

"I wear my sunglasses at night

So I can see Boise play

'Cuz our fi-eld's just too fuck-ing bright."

Or should it be ?

[GhostMachine]

People are pissed off about Plan Z, and the schmucks behind it have more or less admitted that they screwed up bigtime and are working on fixing it. The problem is, it won't be fixed in time to prevent what's going down this year. Do you know how that 1 win team I mentioned got in? Because there are only two teams in that district and the other didn't win any games. Seriously. They changed the brackets for the tournament once shortly after they were released, and frankly I think they need to change it again so that 1 win team is put up against the team with best defense in the state in the first round, so they're guaranteed to be one and done.

Heh. Nice song. But, how about...

"Every step you take and every tackle you break, every juke you make, I'll be watching blue"