More of this.At the end of the season, the big bowl complaint was justifiably coming from Columbia, Missouri. The Tigers had played a Big 12 schedule and traveled out of conference to play an SEC team and a Big 10 team that went to the Rose Bowl. Meanwhile, Kansas, a team that Missouri beat, waltzed into the Orange Bowl after playing a Big 12 schedule and no other BCS conference teams. Mizzou got to go to Dallas for the Cotton Bowl. All this because KU had one less loss and played no one out of conference. Is that fair? No, and I have a least a partial solution. Since we now play 12 games a season, every BCS team should have to play at least one other BCS team from outside their conference. You don't have to be heroic, but you have to play someone. Thus, Kansas can't breeze through their easy nonconference season while their competition for bowl slots play other teams of equal resources.
Many teams have done their part simply because they have a rival they hate. Florida has Florida State. Florida State had Miami. Georgia has Georgia Tech. South Carolina has Clemson. Meanwhile, teams like Texas, LSU, and Penn State can pick and choose when they want to play these games and when they want to sit out a year. (By the way, I'm not picking on those teams because they typically do a decent job of nonconference scheduling, but they don't have a team out of conference that they have to play. They have a choice.) It seems unfair to have one power team with the option to play a big nonconference game while others do so as a matter of course.
The good news is that games like Virginia Tech/LSU, Auburn/West Virginia, Ohio State/USC, and Alabama/Clemson seem to be increasing. I'd just like to see everyone get a big match up, even if it is Michigan/Vanderbilt.
Less of this.
Quinton
Many teams have done their part simply because they have a rival they hate. Florida has Florida State. Florida State had Miami. Georgia has Georgia Tech. South Carolina has Clemson. Meanwhile, teams like Texas, LSU, and Penn State can pick and choose when they want to play these games and when they want to sit out a year. (By the way, I'm not picking on those teams because they typically do a decent job of nonconference scheduling, but they don't have a team out of conference that they have to play. They have a choice.) It seems unfair to have one power team with the option to play a big nonconference game while others do so as a matter of course.
The good news is that games like Virginia Tech/LSU, Auburn/West Virginia, Ohio State/USC, and Alabama/Clemson seem to be increasing. I'd just like to see everyone get a big match up, even if it is Michigan/Vanderbilt.
Less of this.Quinton
6 comments:
interesting comment. My proposal is similar. Drop the bottom 10 Div I teams immediately. No one will miss Army, Utah State, ULL, FIU, etc.
Then make a rule that says you can only play Div I-AA teams once every 4 years. FSU and GT are playing TWO of them this year! That's absurd.
It seems that almost everyone is booking at Div I-AA team these days. Making those 2 changes (along with the rule you proposed) would force a "trickle up" strengthening of schedules across the country.
ULM and Troy can only play so many non-conference games. The BCS teams would have to upgrade their schedules accordingly.
BTW - in 2009...UGA plays THREE BCS teams. That's amazing. Arizona State, @ Ok State and @ GT.
Who else is doing that in the entire country?
Florida State and Miami are in the SAME conference.
uga starting out with gsu and central mich. who mine as well be a d 2 team!
Just for the record, Central Mich. went to a bowl game last season ( I know there are alot of bowls, but still). Not quiet a Div 1-AA team (I will assume you meant 1-AA and not div 2, there is a huge difference).
dear anon 12:21 - that's why the verb regarding Miami is HAD, which is the past tense...
Tennessee wants some... http://cpcandtg.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment