CBJ Board Other Sports Thread: Part VIII

[Fro]

i would probably compare the two conferences over the last decade pretty closely...so no?

 

[Kev22]

While these arguments about non-conference schedule are fun, they are not truly the problem. It's the Big Ten. Ohio State is not getting any help from their own conference. Outside of Wisconsin and Michigan State, who is any good in the conference. Nebraska...nope, Northwestern...nope, Michigan...nope, Penn State...will be probably 10 years before they can truly compete. Ohio State with the exception of 2006 has been carrying the conference on it's back.

We hear all these stories about all the money that B1G schools receive as a result of the B1G network. What happens to these funds? They certainly aren't investing in their moneymaker. Outside of Urban Meyer, name one elite level coach in the B1G (hint: there isn't one). What is a problem for football is certainly not a problem in basketball, that's why the B1G is considered one of if not the elite basketball conference in America. Until the head honchos at the B1G push their member institutions to improve their football programs, OSU will continue to have problems trying to win championships no matter how many games in a row they win.

As for non-conference scheduling, until the NCAA takes it out of the institutions hands and model the NFL, things will never change. If they came along and said that the B1G's non-conference opponents would be members of the SEC or Pac12, it would solve all non-conference issues. It would increase the chances for neutral site games that would draw as much money as a home game, and it would force some teams from the south to "expand their boundaries" and play in places that they would never think of before.

 

[Viqsi]

i would probably compare the two conferences over the last decade pretty closely...so no?

I wouldn't. But I'll allow that that's a point where reasonable people can easily disagree.

 

[Fro]

Kev22-

but but Kirk Ferentz is paid like an elite coach

 

[blahblah]

We hear all these stories about all the money that B1G schools receive as a result of the B1G network.

On a side note, I hate that B1G thing. It looks like an acronym, but it's not. Worst damn idea ever. That should go the way of Boomer.

As for the rest of it, I wouldn't trust the NCAA to handle the schedule; way too damn political and inept to ever give over scheduling to them. You make some good points, but it would just make shift the "problem" to the schedule makers. Teams would complain that their strength of schedule issues were out of their control and the fault of the NCAA.

Ultimately there are just too many Division 1 schools and too few games. I know it would cause chaos, but I would prefer to have a much smaller pool of teams that play each other for teams that wish to be National Championship eligible. That would diminish the conferences in College Football.

The Big 10 is down, been so for a while. Frankly I don't care. If the Big 10 was a power conference, Ohio State would have lost more over the last decade anyway.

 

[Mayor Bee]

While these arguments about non-conference schedule are fun, they are not truly the problem. It's the Big Ten. Ohio State is not getting any help from their own conference. Outside of Wisconsin and Michigan State, who is any good in the conference. Nebraska...nope, Northwestern...nope, Michigan...nope, Penn State...will be probably 10 years before they can truly compete. Ohio State with the exception of 2006 has been carrying the conference on it's back.

Correct. The problem is that the B1G teams seem to regard themselves as equal to the SEC, and therefore able to schedule non-conference garbage without it affecting them.

We hear all these stories about all the money that B1G schools receive as a result of the B1G network. What happens to these funds? They certainly aren't investing in their moneymaker. Outside of Urban Meyer, name one elite level coach in the B1G (hint: there isn't one). What is a problem for football is certainly not a problem in basketball, that's why the B1G is considered one of if not the elite basketball conference in America. Until the head honchos at the B1G push their member institutions to improve their football programs, OSU will continue to have problems trying to win championships no matter how many games in a row they win.

This is exactly the problem right here.

15 years ago, the SEC was basically Florida, Tennessee, and a hot mess. The two best coaches by a mile were Steve Spurrier (Florida) and Philip Fulmer (Tennessee). Outside of that, it was Gerry DiNardo at LSU, Brad Scott at South Carolina, Jim Donnan at Georgia, and the roulette wheel everywhere else.

At the time time, the Big Ten had a lot of damned good coaches, both at the top and as assistants. In the last 15 years, it's been completely reversed. THAT is why the B1G has fallen apart and the SEC can have 5+ teams in the top-15 at a time and it not be wrong. Will Muschamp is about the 7th-best coach in the SEC; he'd be 2nd in the B1G. By the same token, 15 years ago Glen Mason would have been about the 7th-best coach in the Big Ten and 2nd or 3rd in the SEC.

As for non-conference scheduling, until the NCAA takes it out of the institutions hands and model the NFL, things will never change. If they came along and said that the B1G's non-conference opponents would be members of the SEC or Pac12, it would solve all non-conference issues. It would increase the chances for neutral site games that would draw as much money as a home game, and it would force some teams from the south to "expand their boundaries" and play in places that they would never think of before.

The SEC wouldn't have to expand the boundaries. There's the overlap with the ACC, AAC, and now Big 12 in-territory. It's why all that stuff about "Georgia hasn't played a road regular season game outside the SEC states in xx years" is a bunch of garbage...in-conference region schools include Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, Florida State, Louisville, etc.

 

[End of Line]

While these arguments about non-conference schedule are fun, they are not truly the problem. It's the Big Ten. Ohio State is not getting any help from their own conference. Outside of Wisconsin and Michigan State, who is any good in the conference. Nebraska...nope, Northwestern...nope, Michigan...nope, Penn State...will be probably 10 years before they can truly compete. Ohio State with the exception of 2006 has been carrying the conference on it's back.

We hear all these stories about all the money that B1G schools receive as a result of the B1G network. What happens to these funds? They certainly aren't investing in their moneymaker. Outside of Urban Meyer, name one elite level coach in the B1G (hint: there isn't one). What is a problem for football is certainly not a problem in basketball, that's why the B1G is considered one of if not the elite basketball conference in America. Until the head honchos at the B1G push their member institutions to improve their football programs, OSU will continue to have problems trying to win championships no matter how many games in a row they win.

As for non-conference scheduling, until the NCAA takes it out of the institutions hands and model the NFL, things will never change. If they came along and said that the B1G's non-conference opponents would be members of the SEC or Pac12, it would solve all non-conference issues. It would increase the chances for neutral site games that would draw as much money as a home game, and it would force some teams from the south to "expand their boundaries" and play in places that they would never think of before.

They go directly to the schools and help fund pretty much everything. Why do you think Maryland is joining? They're in the red finically. Also opens up another market for the BTN and will drive up their price for the next TV contract and Rutgers will do so as well. NYC/New Jersey and D.C/Baltimore are going to join the list.

Also, Bradley Roby is leaving (everyone knew that) at the end of the season and is taking part in the Senior Day activities.

 

[pete goegan]

Yes, I know and support Breast Cancer Awareness, but these Toledo uniforms are ugly enough to induce rumors.

 

[End of Line]

 

[joshjoshjosh]

HATE WEEK 2013

Combining the two trillion dollars spent on U.S. nuclear testing during that era with the forty three dollars in production costs out of pocket by the band easily makes "Bomb Ann Arbor Now" the most expensive film in history. It was directed by Dead Schembechler lead singer Bo Biafra.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Trying to prepare for the next wave of BS BCS punditry, but I don't see it. I know those pundits are a crafty bunch who will take every step necessary to spin how results affirm existing opinion, but I don't see how a team is going to jump into that #3 spot.

 

[SuperGenius]

Trying to prepare for the next wave of BS BCS punditry, but I don't see it. I know those pundits are a crafty bunch who will take every step necessary to spin how results affirm existing opinion, but I don't see how a team is going to jump into that #3 spot.

I assume some of you saw this last week:

Yesterday's results just reaffirm that winning is what matters, strength of schedule be damned. People can whine about the OSU schedule all they want, but as other teams have shown, anyone can win on a given Saturday. However much people hate OSU, they just can't dismiss win after win the longer they continue without looking petty.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

I assume some of you saw this last week:

Yesterday's results just reaffirm that winning is what matters, strength of schedule be damned. People can whine about the OSU schedule all they want, but as other teams have shown, anyone can win on a given Saturday. However much people hate OSU, they just can't dismiss win after win the longer they continue without looking petty.

I know and I was going through my head trying to figure out what the narrative would be today and was coming up blank. I suppose it's possible the punditry will prove more creative then me, but the story lines are running short.

EDIT:
Wait, I may have found it. One-loss Auburn knocks off top-ranked Alabama, then Auburn deserves to play for the title? Or one-loss Missouri knocks off Auburn in the SEC championship game so they deserve to be #2? Or maybe since Alabama's loss was to a top 4 program, they're still the second-best team?

 

[Mayor Bee]

I assume some of you saw this last week:

Yesterday's results just reaffirm that winning is what matters, strength of schedule be damned. People can whine about the OSU schedule all they want, but as other teams have shown, anyone can win on a given Saturday. However much people hate OSU, they just can't dismiss win after win the longer they continue without looking petty.

Speaking of "petty"....

Baylor defeated 7-3 Texas Tech by 29 points. Baylor was up 21-20 after the first quarter, then went on a 42-14 run. OSU defeated 3-6 Illinois by 25, and after a fast start (21-0 after one) basically had a stalemate against said Illini (39-35 the rest of the way). OSU was apparently worried enough to keep their starters in for the duration, not normally done by a team that "rolls" to a victory.

Sure, I can dismiss the wins without looking petty. I dismissed Marshall's late-1990s records, Boise State's long runs of 11-2, 12-1, and 13-0, so why not do it to OSU as well? They're all playing schedules of similar difficulty.

Should be a brutal couple of weeks here. OSU plays Michigan, who beat Akron and UConn by a combined 7 points and has the 95th-ranked offense in the country. After that is Michigan State, who after a (*snicker*) dominant win against Northwestern have moved all the way up to #80 on offense.

 

[Mayor Bee]

I know and I was going through my head trying to figure out what the narrative would be today and was coming up blank. I suppose it's possible the punditry will prove more creative then me, but the story lines are running short.

EDIT:
Wait, I may have found it. One-loss Auburn knocks off top-ranked Alabama, then Auburn deserves to play for the title? Or one-loss Missouri knocks off Auburn in the SEC championship game so they deserve to be #2? Or maybe since Alabama's loss was to a top 4 program, they're still the second-best team?

It'll be the same as it is with the basketball tournament. Each team would have to be assessed on the totality of their merits, rather than simply "good wins" versus "bad losses".

My own opinions:
- One-loss Alabama would be deserving over unbeaten OSU with a win over Auburn, even with a loss in the SEC championship. OR with a loss to Auburn, followed by an Auburn loss to Missouri in the SEC title game AND a Missouri loss to Texas A&M
- One-loss Auburn would be deserving, since a one-loss Auburn team would have won both the SEC and the game against Alabama in the process
- One-loss Missouri would be deserving, although this would be a lot closer because of a weaker in-conference schedule (although they play Texas A&M this week)

Now, the line of people calling me "homer" or "fanboy" can go ahead and form up on the left...

 

[Fro]

its already being set up that way...

 

[Jaxs]

its already being set up that way...

How'd your team do yesterday?

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

It'll be the same as it is with the basketball tournament. Each team would have to be assessed on the totality of their merits, rather than simply "good wins" versus "bad losses".

My own opinions:
- One-loss Alabama would be deserving over unbeaten OSU with a win over Auburn, even with a loss in the SEC championship. OR with a loss to Auburn, followed by an Auburn loss to Missouri in the SEC title game AND a Missouri loss to Texas A&M
- One-loss Auburn would be deserving, since a one-loss Auburn team would have won both the SEC and the game against Alabama in the process
- One-loss Missouri would be deserving, although this would be a lot closer because of a weaker in-conference schedule (although they play Texas A&M this week)

Now, the line of people calling me "homer" or "fanboy" can go ahead and form up on the left...

Where does the line of people calling you a troll begin?

 

[Mayor Bee]

Where does the line of people calling you a troll begin?

Sometime in 1997.

Unless you're referring to "looking like a troll", in which case you need to go back a lot further than that.

 

[NotWendell]

sometime in 1997.

Unless you're referring to "looking like a troll", in which case you need to go back a lot further than that.

lol!

 

[Sore Loser]

My input on this discussion:

I think the rankings are perfect the way they are, at least in the top-4. Why? You have the best two teams at the top, followed by the other two most deserving teams. Alabama has handled everything that's been thrown at them - easily in many cases. Florida State has not only gone unbeaten, but won at Clemson (51-14) ... a huge showing in a very tough test. For that reason, vs the games Ohio State and Baylor have played, they deserve to be #2. Simply, the two most proven teams are at the top.

 

[SuperGenius]

Speaking of "petty"....

Baylor defeated 7-3 Texas Tech by 29 points. Baylor was up 21-20 after the first quarter, then went on a 42-14 run. OSU defeated 3-6 Illinois by 25, and after a fast start (21-0 after one) basically had a stalemate against said Illini (39-35 the rest of the way). OSU was apparently worried enough to keep their starters in for the duration, not normally done by a team that "rolls" to a victory.

Sure, I can dismiss the wins without looking petty. I dismissed Marshall's late-1990s records, Boise State's long runs of 11-2, 12-1, and 13-0, so why not do it to OSU as well? They're all playing schedules of similar difficulty.

Should be a brutal couple of weeks here. OSU plays Michigan, who beat Akron and UConn by a combined 7 points and has the 95th-ranked offense in the country. After that is Michigan State, who after a (*snicker*) dominant win against Northwestern have moved all the way up to #80 on offense.

The objective is to win games. Something only a handlful of teams have managed to do. If they aren't as good as each other, I'm sure playing each other will bear that out. It seems overly simple to rant on and on about schedule strength when schedules aren't dynamic and are determined years in advance. This notion you want to portray is that OSU is deliberately controlling their schedule to make it 'easy'. As long as the conference model exists, and no extended playoff exists, teams will certainly have to depend on opinions of their competition, but that's just another flaw in the system. As teams wax and wane, schedule and conference strengths follow. It's as dumb to laud a team with a 'strong' schedule' as it is to lambast a team with a 'weak schedule' when both are unpredictable variables.

You're really stretching on this one Mayor. Enough already. If OSU isn't good enough, then I'm sure we'll find out in a bowl game, but for now, they continue to do all they can do, and that is win each game they play. Until then, given the inability of most schools of any strength to win their games, it might be a good idea to start recognizing those that do. However easy or however hard you think the road is, it is difficult to imagine 23 consecutive wins in a row as anything but a noteworthy achievement. A lot of 'great' teams find ways to lose each year - let's try to remember how truly uncommon it is for a team to pull this kind of thing off - and consider some due respect.

 

[Mayor Bee]

The objective is to win games. Something only a handlful of teams have managed to do. If they aren't as good as each other, I'm sure playing each other will bear that out. It seems overly simple to rant on and on about schedule strength when schedules aren't dynamic and are determined years in advance. This notion you want to portray is that OSU is deliberately controlling their schedule to make it 'easy'. As long as the conference model exists, and no extended playoff exists, teams will certainly have to depend on opinions of their competition, but that's just another flaw in the system. As teams wax and wane, schedule and conference strengths follow. It's as dumb to laud a team with a 'strong' schedule' as it is to lambast a team with a 'weak schedule' when both are unpredictable variables.

Of course teams have input into their schedule. In the B1G, there's four non-conference games to account for. Some games are scheduled years in advance, most aren't. And at some point, Ohio State reached the conclusion that scheduling respectable opponents out of conference was a negative.

Let's look first at this year's murderers' row of opponents. The two-year series with California (2012 and 2013 games) were finalized back in early 2002. At that time, Cal hadn't hit .500 since 1996 and had last had a winning season in 1993. The marquee opponents of the Tressel era have had several one-offs, and a couple of actual series. They went 1-1 against Texas, 0-2 against USC, 2-1 against Miami, and 2-0 against Youngstown State.

On this year's slate is Florida A&M (agreed on November 22, 2011), Buffalo (agreed on February 10, 2012), and San Diego State (date unknown, but after the Buffalo agreement). When those three opponents were added on, their mediocrity was completely known, as well as the fact that they were unlikely to suddenly break through as national contenders in the ensuing...one season.

Let's not forget that Ohio State cancelled a two-year series with Tennessee the same day that the Florida A&M game was announced, and the two-year series with Georgia was cancelled by OSU in May 2012. In light of OSU's poor performance in multi-game series against decent opponents, and backed by the fact that they cancelled two future series against SEC opponents years in advance, we can only conclude that OSU determined that the risk is too high to accept. It seems clear to me that they'd rather obliterate the B1G, obliterate the laughable non-conference schedule they've put together, and hope that someone in front of them loses.

My opposition is a lot easier to understand when you realize that ducking anyone is shameful. I regard the long-mentioned idea of a public/private split in high school to be disgraceful for this reason. It's not a terribly popular viewpoint; I was once silenced in a joint football/AD meeting over future scheduling on this very issue. If that was any indication, it's that for every 1 of me who feels this way, 8 others do not. Fun meeting, by the way.

You're really stretching on this one Mayor. Enough already. If OSU isn't good enough, then I'm sure we'll find out in a bowl game, but for now, they continue to do all they can do, and that is win each game they play. Until then, given the inability of most schools of any strength to win their games, it might be a good idea to start recognizing those that do. However easy or however hard you think the road is, it is difficult to imagine 23 consecutive wins in a row as anything but a noteworthy achievement. A lot of 'great' teams find ways to lose each year - let's try to remember how truly uncommon it is for a team to pull this kind of thing off - and consider some due respect.

I give OSU the same respect I gave Boise State for winning 24 in a row. Good for you, now play some real teams and we'll talk.

(Boise State non-conference wins during that streak: Oregon, TCU, Virginia Tech, and Oregon State. Oregon was 10-2 during that regular season, Virginia Tech 11-2.)

 

[SuperGenius]

At this point I think you're just cutting and pasting from previous posts. You've said all of this before. None of it matters to me or my position in this debate. The schedule is what it is for all teams. The only thing teams can control is winning the games they are scheduled to play. The SEC plays nobodies too, but you can't bring that up, because "the SEC is so strong blah blah blah" It's just a boring argument about things teams cannot control.

Just win, baby.

 

[Crede777]

Some games are scheduled years in advance, most aren't.

I don't think that's correct. According to some of the OSU athletics guys I've talked to, the vast majority are scheduled years in advance...

Then again I think both Clemson and Georgia were way overrated and beating them shouldn't count for much.