Appalacian State 21 - UofM 14

[scott]

Wow.

[FUDU]

michigan has been notorious for early season disappointments in the last 7 years, even in games in which they do win.

Um 28-14 at half?

LOL

[Madre Hill, Superstar]

Appalachian State up 5 with 5 mins left. Big wow.

[Madre Hill, Superstar]

OK, scratch that. A State couldn't stop a gimpy Mike Hart from crossing half the field.

[scott]

OK, scratch that. A State couldn't stop a gimpy Mike Hart from crossing half the field.

still gonna pull it off.

[furls]

hahaha


Michigan is now the victim of the biggest upset in NCAA football history.

[scott]

Does Lloyd Carr still have a job?

[Guest]

Hilarious.
I love it.
F scUM

[swerb]

Could the 2007 NCAA Football season possibly get off to a better start?

[Wahoot]

Awesome.

My parents, my sister, and I all called each other at exactly the same time.

[mswerb]

scUM= losers

[FUDU]

Rumor has it Columbus is going nuts, like we just won a game against michigan.

Top 5 college football upset of all time.

How does that McDonald's saying go.

[FUDU]

Am I reading the reports correctly?

lil m had 3 kicks blocked in the final few minutes?

[furls]

i saw 2 at the end of the game.

[Madre Hill, Superstar]

OK, now I wish I had the Big Ten channel.

[OldDawg]

Motown Metropolitan Meltdown Melodrama Continues...

OSU over UM last fall
OSU over UM in hoops
Cavs top Pistons in playoffs
Tribe on the way to beating the Tigers (knock on wood)
And UM football starts off this way...

Can it get any better?

All the Motown Metro area can cling to is a preseason Lions victory over the Browns....Oh, that's right, that didn't really count!

[jfiling]

Can we officially say that he has another "L" in his name?

[BruceK]

Hell, they should just hire John Cooper as coach -- it couldn't get any worse.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Hell, they should just hire John Cooper as coach -- it couldn't get any worse.

At least Cooper didn't struggle against teams so early in the season so often.

No excuse for that game today from everything I've heard. Appalachian State is a good I-AA squad (or whatever it's called), but a team with Michigan's talent should never have a problem.

There's already been quite a bit of talk down here in Tampa about Jon Gruden taking over at Michigan after the season. He's listed it as his dream job for years as he grew up in Sandusky idolizing Schembechler and the Wolverines.

It wouldn't surprise me if he's interested in the gig at least. I don't know if Michigan would go outside of their own ranks, but they need to. Lloyd Carr has been a crappy excuse for a head coach since the beginning. They won in 1997 largely because Woodson was so good at what he did - he bailed them out on numerous occasions. If Michigan were wise, they'd seriously look into Jon Gruden if he's available. I'm positive he'd take the job from what I know of him and from brief conversations with him inthe past when I've been over at One Buc Place. He'd bring the West Coast Offense to Ann Arbor and would probably bring a Tony Dungy/Monte Kiffin protege with him to implement a defense based largely on the Tampa 2.

[StewieG]

I'm a Bucks fan, but I'm not going to gloat or anything like that. I'm going to rant.

There is absolutely no way Michigan should have lost that game. Not in any building, in any weather conditions, no matter how many distractions are going on. I don't care if Appalacia State has Jim Brown in his prime, Michigan can't lose to a 1-AA school. They just can't. If you find a bigger upset in college football history, please let me know. I can't. If I'm the Michigan AD, Lloyd is fired as soon as the clock hits 0:00. What should have been a run at the national title is now over. The absolute best they can hope for is running the table and getting a BCS bowl bid, but after that performance who knows if that'll happen. And if I'm voting in the AP poll (which I'm not, obviously), I don't put Michigan in the top 25 at all this next week (and I would have had them at 3 behind USC and LSU going into the first week).

Ridiculous. The game shouldn't have even been close. Being a good 1-AA team is like being a bad MAC team. It's like losing to Buffalo. I'm upset, and I don't even like Michigan. Wow.

[FUDU]

Michigan can't lose to a 1-AA school. They just can't. If you find a bigger upset in college football history, please let me know. I can't

IIRC NO AP ranked team has ever lost to a Div1-AA team before EVER.

A point a friend of mine brought up, even though we Buckeye fans get plenty of kicks from a michigan loss it actually sucks that they lost that game b/c it makes a win over michigan much less impressive come mid November in the eyes of the polls and the media.

As a Buckeyes fan I have always preferred michigan win out until mid November, upping the anti of the big match up.

[furls]

And if I'm voting in the AP poll (which I'm not, obviously), I don't put Michigan in the top 25 at all this next week (and I would have had them at 3 behind USC and LSU going into the first week).

It just goes to show you how overrated they were. They lost their entire defense, and everyone was still willing/trying to make them the Big Ten Champs in August based on 4 offensive skill players. We have all watched the Browns play, offensive skill players are the difference between good and great teams, but none of it means anything without solid line play and defense.

[swerb]

Waking up, relecting on this, as pleasurable as it was to grave dance on scUM ... this loss is not good for The Buckeye Nation.

One, it reflects horrifically on The Big Ten, still trying to recover from the kick to the groin last season we took in the Rose Bowl and BCS Championship Game.

Two, it almost guarantees LLLLLoyd Carr is fired at seasons end, terrible news for all Buckeye fans.

[furls]

supposedly he was not going to be there next year anyways.

If it was a great season, carr was going to ride off into the sunset with his seniors.

If it was a bad season, he would not be welcomed back. This outcome almost certainly guarentees the latter, but in any case, I think this was Carr's last season.

[leadpipe]

The thing about the game was, this wasn't one of those deals where the dog had four or five things happen in their favor and the favorite plays catch-up. App. dominated that game virtually wire to wire. They should have won by more. Inexcusable.

Swerb brings up the valid point about Carr. Even his staunchest supporters aren't going to have an explanation for this.

In the Big House for crying out loud.

[furls]

I thought that the # of scholarships was going to ultimately win the game for scUM. It was pretty clear that Ap State was wearing down, otherwise they would've won by double digits.

Michigan's defense is suspect at best (again). Anyone still willing to give them the conference?

It is interesting that people always say that you win games in the trenches and that defense wins championships, and then they vote in the polls based on returning skill players.

[Madre Hill, Superstar]

One, it reflects horrifically on The Big Ten, still trying to recover from the kick to the groin last season we took in the Rose Bowl and BCS Championship Game.

Which is a shame, because it should only reflect horribly on Carr.

[FUDU]

and then they vote in the polls based on returning skill players.

Great F'ing point, and held true last year with us. We got respect early solely due to QB, RB 2 WR's, even then most of the nation suspected this team due to losing 8 starters on D. Like I said earlier but michgian can lose 8, from a lesser quality D to start, and it should not be a problem for them?

Well reality paid the price for a ticket in Ann Arbor yesterday and stayed for the entire game.

Does suck if Carr goes, that man needs to be servicing Charles Woodson for the rest of his living days b/c Woodson is Carr's entire legacy.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

I thought that the # of scholarships was going to ultimately win the game for scUM. It was pretty clear that Ap State was wearing down, otherwise they would've won by double digits.

Michigan's defense is suspect at best (again). Anyone still willing to give them the conference?

It is interesting that people always say that you win games in the trenches and that defense wins championships, and then they vote in the polls based on returning skill players.

I think it's because the defense is just bread and butter. There are defensive highlights of games shown every week, but I'm positive offensive highlights still greatly outnumber them. It's because the offense is the eye catching portion of the game. Since it's what creates the most excitement it becomes overrated when evaluating a team.

I wasn't sure about Michigan's ability to win the Big Ten in the first place. I've never been a fan of Carr and strongly felt that he should have been canned after last season when it was clear that his coaching hurt the team. To be honest, I think this may be a down year for the Big Ten as a whole anyways. Wisconsin and Ohio State can make some noise, but who knows about anyone else.

As to Carr, I agree that he was probably gone one way or the other. The question for Michigan is if they just look towards their own Michigan men to replace him or actually go outside to find a new coach. I do think Swerb is right, that the loss to Appalachian State could end up being bad for Ohio State, though it greatly depends on what Michigan does in response. If Carr did ride out into the sunset then an assistant probably would have been given the gig. Now I'm betting that the boosters will insist that Michigan hire someone of a much better pedigree. They certainly will insist that Ron English and his crappy defensive compatriots are shown the door.

My guess is that Michigan will find someone who will completely revamp their philosophies on offense and defense.

Which is a shame, because it should only reflect horribly on Carr.

And some of the players. Their defense has nothing to be proud of.

But if Michigan gets it together and beats some of the "better" Big Ten teams then the quality of the whole conference will be in question. Though the ultimate quality will depend upon how well the Big Ten fares against other conferences in bowl games.

Can anyone say that the Big Ten was very good last year? Ohio State had a good team but got wasted in the title game. Michigan did hang with USC for a while, but feel apart at the end. Minnesota lost a close one to Texas Tech. Purdue got waxed by Maryland. Iowa did come close to beating Texas, but I don't believe that Colt McCoy was at 100% for that one. Penn State did beat Tennessee and Wisconsin beat Arkansas, but that was it. Not a good showing at all in the bowls last year. I ranked the Big Ten last year behind the SEC, the PAC-10, the Big East, and the Big 12. This year they might fall behind the ACC if FSU and Miami improve markedly.

[FUDU]

IIRC Mac, ESPN reported in their college preview show that the Big Ten has a winning record against the SEC in head to head bowl match ups either since the BCS started or in the past 4-5 years.

IMO there is not much difference between the two conferences.

Look at it this way, if OSU beat Florida last January, let's say 30-21 a respectable outcome, does that ONE game change the fact of whether the SEC is better than the Big Ten or not?

IMO it doesn't, if the SEC was better than one game doesn't change that outlook.

My 2 cents.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

IIRC Mac, ESPN reported in their college preview show that the Big Ten has a winning record against the SEC in head to head bowl match ups either since the BCS started or in the past 4-5 years.

IMO there is not much difference between the two conferences.

Look at it this way, if OSU beat Florida last January, let's say 30-21 a respectable outcome, does that ONE game change the fact of whether the SEC is better than the Big Ten or not?

IMO it doesn't, if the SEC was better than one game doesn't change that outlook.

My 2 cents.

I wasn't ranking the Big Ten over the past five season, I was ranking the Big Ten last year. I will agree that the middle of the conferences were fairly equal, but I think the middle of many of the big conferences are actually pretty equal.

I think it was clear last year that the class of the SEC was superior to the class of the Big Ten. The Big Ten did take out Arkansas and Tennessee. Arkansas was overrated last year, IMHO, and Tennessee was mediocre. Take away McFadden from the Razorbacks and Arkansas is iffy.

But the Big Ten went 2-5 in bowl games against other conferences. The class of the SEC hammered the Big Ten's top team in a laugher when almost everyone felt Ohio State would win and some thought they'd win big.

I haven't been convinced of the quality of the Big Ten since Ohio State won their title.

As for the differences between the SEC and Big Ten, I think the SEC is much deeper.

[furls]

Not a good showing at all in the bowls last year. I ranked the Big Ten last year behind the SEC, the PAC-10, the Big East, and the Big 12. This year they might fall behind the ACC if FSU and Miami improve markedly

.

People place to much stock in Bowl games when ranking conferences at the end of the season. Look at the Big East which got a big kick from a 5-0 conference record in the BCS.

Their crowning victory? Wake Forest. The next best? GaTech.

The Big Ten? Played 2 BCS conference champions (FL, USC) and two runners up (Arkansas and Texas was essentially the runner up in the Big 12) and the second best team in the SEC East.

The Big Ten did not show well in the Bowls last year, but NO CONFERENCE PLAYED ANYTHING CLOSE TO THE STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE.

[furls]

Take away McFadden from the Razorbacks and Arkansas is iffy.

If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

If you take Manning off the colts they don't go to the superbowl. If you take A Rod off the Yankees then they cannot even sniff the Red Sox this year. If the Cavs didn't have LeBron they would be "iffy." Take Troy Smith off the Buckeyes and they don't win the conference. That is part of the game.

No question this is a down year for the big ten. I said as much in my preview, but for a conference that was so weak last year, their middle of the road teams sure seemed to represent themselves and the conference well against the class conference in college football.

[peeker643]

I just like the fact that Michigan's self-proclaimed legit chance to win national championship ended on September 1st before 4pm. It's no even fall yet.

And Pipe is right. I watched that game from halftime on, and APP St took it right at them. Then APP St got conservative and had to hold on late. In fact, Once UM took the lead it was like App St realized they could open up again and it was on.

I also like the fact that Henne and Hart and the boys who returned to win that national title and finally beat the Buckeyes are already looking at one out of two at best.

If UM is smart, they will fire coach prior to the Buckeye game and utilize the Earl Bruce type emotional kick it would give them. Relieve the pressure on the man because he can't live with it.

[buckeyehoppy]

I'm just posting now because I just stopped laughing.

OK! That's it! No more laughing!

App. State is probably better than half the teams in D-IA. And their win only proves that they came in with a great game plan and a knowledge that they had nothing to lose.

They clobbered Y-town State in the D-IAA Championship Game last year. I would imagine that they will be unbeatable at that level again this year.

With that said...

...anyone who drank the Kool-Aid on TSUN's prowess and grandeur, I hope you had a good life and my thoughts go out to your families on this sad day.

A2C2 has, maybe, three players who are even legitimately talented to play in the NFL. And two of them are not named Henne or Hart.

Yes, this is not good for the Buckeyes strength of schedule if they do surprise and run the table. But, who cares...TSUN lost to a D-IAA school and it simply points up how overrated they were coming into this season.

GO BLueOW!!!

[Mr. MacPhisto]

The Big Ten did not show well in the Bowls last year, but NO CONFERENCE PLAYED ANYTHING CLOSE TO THE STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE.

Fact or opinion? Link?

Now, going into this season some of the computational data has been done.

http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootba ... y/10299697

The SEC has the toughest strength of schedule. I believe it was actually the same last year too.

Big East is #2.

PAC-10 is #3.

Big Ten is way behind the PAC-10 in 4th place.

Things will change as the season moves on. Digging around for last year it seems that the Big Ten was tied for second with the Big 12, but that both were WAY behind the SEC in strength of schedule although that was about 1/3 into the season.

Of course, there's much argument to be had over schedule strength and what matters when you calculate it. For instance, this man set up a formula that said the Big East was the best conference last year:

http://football.calculusman.com/

[furls]

Read it again, and slow down. I was referring to the bowl season. Like it says in the sentence....

The Big Ten did not show well in the Bowls last year, but NO CONFERENCE PLAYED ANYTHING CLOSE TO THE STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE.

Fact or opinion? Link?

Opinion based on fact.

Big East Bowl results: 5-0, ONE ranked opponent
ACC Results: 4-4, TWO ranked oppenents
Big XII: 3-5, THREE ranked opponents
PAC 10: 3-3, THREE ranked opponents
Big 10: 2-5, FIVE ranked opponents
SEC: 6-3, FIVE ranked opponents.

So basically, the Big 10 and SEC played the same number of ranked teams, but the Big faced 2 seperate conference champions and 2 runners up.

5/7 (71.4%) of the Big Ten bowl opponents were ranked.
5/9 (55.5%) of the SEC opponents were ranked so, um yeah, on average, the Big Ten's bowl line up was much more difficult.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Actually it seemed to me that you were implying that the Big Ten's regular season made up for it's lackluster bowl season. I probably would have said that they had the toughest slate in bowl games to clarify.

Yet it's not just who they played, it's how they played. Both Michigan and Ohio State showed SERIOUS coaching deficiencies in their bowl games. Tressel and his staff were essentially raped by Urban Meyer and Florida's speed on defense clearly hurt Ohio State.

Michigan hung in there, but was Michigan that good or was USC overrated?

Of course, your opinion is based largely on the same polling system you denigrated earlier for ranking Michigan so highly and putting too much stock in offense.

So, if the polls are flawed as you say then how can you possibly say the Big Ten played the toughest bowl slate based on those same polls?

Fact is that the Big Ten had the worst record in bowl games of any major conference. You can cover up for it if you like, but it's true. You can harp on the Big East, but they won the games that they were supposed to win.

The Badgers deserve credit for their win over Arkansas, but that's really the only thing of note that happened for the Big Ten out of their conference last year. It's a pity that the schedule is such that Wisconsin and Ohio State didn't play each other last year.

The other win was against a coach in Fulmer who is more inept than any other in the SEC. He's their equivalent of Lloyd Carr.

Yet those are the two wins and they don't really counter the two embarrassing losses that the Big Ten suffered.

If last year was that bad for the Big Ten then what will they look like if this year really is a down year? Maybe the Big Ten should start reaching agreements on bowl games with the MAC and CUSA so they can actually win some postseason games.

I hope the Big Ten can prove me otherwise, but I'm not impressed at all. I have been a fan, but I don't think the conference is anywhere near as good as it once was.

[furls]

Of course, your opinion is based largely on the same polling system you denigrated earlier for ranking Michigan so highly and putting too much stock in offense.

How else do you want me to quantify it? By using relative finishes in their respective conferences? Oh that's right, I did that too.

So, if the polls are flawed as you say then how can you possibly say the Big Ten played the toughest bowl slate based on those same polls?

I base my opinion on the fact that Big Ten was the only conference to play two different BCS conference champions and the runner in up in the toughest conference in the country. Show me one team anywhere in the Big East's impressive list of bowl victories that is even in the same ball park with the Big Ten's five highest ranked opponents (Florida, USC, Arkansas, Texas, and Tennessee). While WF may have been able to play with Texas or Tennessee, the simple fact that you would have to make that statement proves the point, you have to go down to the fourth or fifth best team before you find a good match up for Wake.

Fact is that the Big Ten had the worst record in bowl games of any major conference. You can cover up for it if you like, but it's true. You can harp on the Big East, but they won the games that they were supposed to win.

Lets Recap the Big East wins:

East Carolina, Kansas St., WMU, GaTech, WF

Your right, they beat the second class crap that they are supposed to.

Yet those are the two wins and they don't really counter the two embarrassing losses that the Big Ten suffered.

I agree on this one and it is exactly the point of what I have been writing. The Big Ten did not represent itself well last year in Bowls, but neither did the Big East. They beat no one, and true to college football form, it is better to win against a garbage no one than to lose to the best teams in the country.

If last year was that bad for the Big Ten then what will they look like if this year really is a down year? Maybe the Big Ten should start reaching agreements on bowl games with the MAC and CUSA so they can actually win some postseason games.

Hmmm, maybe that would be a good idea, but didnt most of CUSA join the Big East when all the decent programs left? I guess they could schedule CUSA and the MAC in bowl games, and win those games, and swing popular opinion of uninformed fans, just like it did for the Big East. Personally, I prefer to see good games, so excuse me if I don't root for that.

I hope the Big Ten can prove me otherwise, but I'm not impressed at all. I have been a fan, but I don't think the conference is anywhere near as good as it once was.

I agree on that. Last year was a bad year for the top of the conference in the bowls, and the middle of the conference has been deteriorating for the last 5 years, basically since 2002.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

I base my opinion on the fact that Big Ten was the only conference to play two different BCS conference champions and the runner in up in the toughest conference in the country. Show me one team anywhere in the Big East's impressive list of bowl victories that is even in the same ball park with the Big Ten's five highest ranked opponents (Florida, USC, Arkansas, Texas, and Tennessee). While WF may have been able to play with Texas or Tennessee, the simple fact that you would have to make that statement proves the point, you have to go down to the fourth or fifth best team before you find a good match up for Wake.

I'd love to show you one, but the fact is that the Big East got hosed in its bowl representation when the ACC got in there and pulled out three teams. I'm glad for that in the long term because USF had a chance to get it. Louisville probably is glad too.

I don't fault the Big East for not being respected by the bowls, the other conferences, or the fans. I believe things will change, especially if Louisville, WVU, and Rutgers continue to do well. USF is also picked as a dark horse and is continuing to build a strong program. Syracuse stinks now, but they do have a history and may be able to recover over the next several years. Cincy has a strong coach in Kelly and can continue to build on what D'Antonio did there. Last year's Cincy team played a brutal schedule yet still made a bowl game. They aren't upper echelon, but I'd argue that they're better than many of the middle of the road Big Ten teams like Minnesota.

Lets Recap the Big East wins:

East Carolina, Kansas St., WMU, GaTech, WF

Your right, they beat the second class crap that they are supposed to.

Yes. They won with what they were given and may be able to get better bowls in the future when contracts expire. The Outback is considering replacing the Big Ten with the Big East when the contract expires in 2010, largely due to USF's affiliation with the Big East and the Big East's showing last year.

I hope that the Big East will get better matchups in the BCS and elsewhere so we can see how the conference stacks up in head-to-head.

I agree on this one and it is exactly the point of what I have been writing. The Big Ten did not represent itself well last year in Bowls, but neither did the Big East. They beat no one, and true to college football form, it is better to win against a garbage no one than to lose to the best teams in the country.

The Big East won, so how did they not represent themselves well? As I said, the Big East is having to recover from what happened when the ACC raided. How good would the Big Ten look if Michigan, Ohio State, and Purdue (probably the best BC equivalent, right?) all were lured into another conference? It's not going to happen, but do you think the Big Ten would keep good bowl contracts when those deals ran out?

Hmmm, maybe that would be a good idea, but didnt most of CUSA join the Big East when all the decent programs left? I guess they could schedule CUSA and the MAC in bowl games, and win those games, and swing popular opinion of uninformed fans, just like it did for the Big East. Personally, I prefer to see good games, so excuse me if I don't root for that.

Three teams don't make up most of CUSA. The Big East did look to Louisville, USF, and Cincinnati to replace Miami, VT, and BC. I think you can argue that they did a pretty good job in comparison to those teams last year. UConn also replaced Temple and I'd call that an upgrade. UConn has plenty of potential for the future just as Rutgers does with Schiano there. There are lots of talented athletes in the NE that haven't had so many good more local options. Rutgers certainly can work to keep NYC talent more localized.

I believe the games for the Big East will get more entertaining. USF has signed a six game deal with Miami for games that will happen on Thanksgiving weekend every year beginning in 2009. Our athletic department did try to schedule games with Ohio State and other Big Ten teams for the future, but Ohio State preferred to play Youngstown State and MAC schools. Why won't Ohio State schedule Big East teams more often? Cincy was CUSA when they were scheduled and aren't around on the OSU schedule until 2012. I give kudos to Ohio State for scheduling USC for a home/home series in 2008 and 2009, but why only one good out-of-conference team every year? The same goes for many teams outside of OSU.

I'm all for all the big conferences playing each other and letting the mid-majors play each other instead of providing easy wins for the higher end guys.

I agree on that. Last year was a bad year for the top of the conference in the bowls, and the middle of the conference has been deteriorating for the last 5 years, basically since 2002.

Michigan falling apart under Carr hasn't helped the Big Ten either. They always post a great recruiting class yet never reach the heights they should get to. Ohio State is the only school in the whole conference that could really put any fear in anyone outside of the conference right now. I'll believe in Wisconsin and Penn St. when I see them look impressive in a tough game.

I'm no Ohio State fan, but right now the Big Ten just looks like a good Ohio State team, several decent teams that are no better than the middle teams in other conferences, and a few really bad teams on the bottom. Indiana was showing improvement last year on the bottom before tragedy struck just like Northwestern had the year before.

I'm not trying to hate on the Big Ten because it's the football I grew up with, but it doesn't seem anywhere as good as it did a decade ago. Maybe the rough patch now is equivalent to how shaky it was at times during the 80s.

[furls]

As I said, the Big East is having to recover from what happened when the ACC raided. How good would the Big Ten look if Michigan, Ohio State, and Purdue (probably the best BC equivalent, right?) all were lured into another conference? It's not going to happen, but do you think the Big Ten would keep good bowl contracts when those deals ran out?

The Big Ten would be exactly what the Big East... A conference that is somewhere between the MAC and a BCS conference, which is exactly my point. Where your logic is off is that you are saying that bowl contracts are driven by a conference's ability to win games. That is not the case, bowl contracts are driven by a conference's ability to put butts in seats and generate national interest. Things that teams like Cincinnati, CT, etc are not going to do in the immediate future. While Iowa, Minnesota, and Michigan State do not always put the best product on the field, they travel well and have a program legacy that generates viewing interest, and in the end that is all that the bowl committees care about.

Our athletic department did try to schedule games with Ohio State and other Big Ten teams for the future, but Ohio State preferred to play Youngstown State and MAC schools. Why won't Ohio State schedule Big East teams more often? Cincy was CUSA when they were scheduled and aren't around on the OSU schedule until 2012. I give kudos to Ohio State for scheduling USC for a home/home series in 2008 and 2009, but why only one good out-of-conference team every year? The same goes for many teams outside of OSU.

The problem has nothing to do with fear of losing a game. The problem is economics pure and simple. Right now teams in the Big East are under the mistaken impression that they are on even footing with the big boys, the Ohio State's, Michigans, USCs, etc. Right now the Big East middle tier schools are looking for home and homes with them that they are not going to get any time soon. Hell, even the top tier Big East teams are not going to get home and homes until they prove that they are sustained top tier programs.

Louisville and WVU do not have the long term success to fall back on to make a big boy risk their one big game of the season. What if the one big game on Ohio State's schedule is Louisville and they are not good? Well then the Buckeyes end up with this year's Washington game again.

Now of course you could ask why the Buckeyes don't just schedule a second big home and home every year and the answer is economics. How much money would that second road game cost the Buckeyes? From what I have heard it would be about 12million every other year, a price that no appearance fee would make up. So it is not in Ohio State's best financial interest to give up the home game, and right now, Big East middle tier teams will not agree to just go on the road and play games unreciprocated.

In order for the conference to gain credibility, its teams are going to have to bite the bullet, go on the road and play those games and win or show well. Until they do it (or the NCAA steps in and makes the Big Boys play fair in contract talks), they will continue to be the step children of the BCS.

Personally, I would like to see the NCAA mandate that both schools involved in a game share revenue and reciprocate home games. Then the "financial" scheduling would end and it would be in big programs best interests to play other big programs, thus improving scheduling.

This will NEVER EVER EVER happen, but until it does we will continue to see the non conference schedules that we see today.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

USF wasn't looking for a home/home series from Ohio State. They got one from Michigan State, but that's a different story. They offered to fill one of Ohio State's vacancies in 2009 or 2010 (can't remember which one) and go to Columbus. Ohio State said they were looking for a non-BCS team to fill it up. The impression on our end was that the Buckeyes only wanted one solid out of conference team that could be perceived as a real threat.

We did the same thing with Auburn a few years ago when they were up there and Auburn agreed so we play at Jordan Hare next weekend.

I understand the reluctance of Ohio State to schedule home/home series, but it also seems that they reject teams that would at least rate about equal to a mid-level Big Ten team even if they'd be willing to come to Columbus for the standard rate.

Same thing happened when USF approached Michigan. We weren't going to offer the same deal for a mid-level Big Ten, but Michigan State was interested in a home/home deal as was Indiana, but I'd put USF above both of them. It's not something our athletic's dept. ever considered when dealing with Auburn, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Florida State, Florida, Michigan, and Texas.

We did get home/home with Miami because there's an intent to try to build an intrastate rivalry there. It's also possible that if USF does continue to improve that they would be mandated to play FSU and UF by state law just like UF and FSU are. There's already been talk in the state legislature about it. They won't force Miami to play the other Florida teams because they are private, but there may be a statute within the next year forcing all the BCS teams to play annually starting some time around 2010-1011 or so.

USF already has two game scheduled for play at the Swamp in Gainesville. Florida State's the only team that has refused to schedule us in the state.

As for the rest of the Big East in scheduling, it is my understanding from the USF athletic dept. that they've all head similar problems. Louisville and WVU have both offered to visit big time teams, I don't know which ones, and have been rejected. They didn't ask for any reciprocation. I think they understand what they have to do to legitimize the Big East, it just seems like the Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, ACC, and the PAC-10 to a lesser extent (they haven't pursued as much with the PAC-10 do to distance) have been less than willing to give the Big East any ability to get better by playing them.

WVU does have a home/home with Auburn that starts next season, but they've been snuffed by other teams. Virginia Tech has shown little interest in renewing the rivalry there since the move to the ACC. Florida State did sign up for a home/home, but offers to only visit other bigger names have been squashed.

While some of it is about the money, that's not it. Ohio State doesn't want to schedule a tough out of conference schedule because they want to improve their chances to win a national title. They play one big game to legitimize their chances and then earn points by playing in conference. The same goes for Michigan, though that backfired this year. Other schools are exactly the same. Florida generally always plays pussy out of conference apart from Florida State and they only started to play Florida State because it is required by state law.

It's because the system sucks. I'd guess a playoff system of some sort would help alleviate the problem because one loss would not be as devastating and there would be greater rewards for defeating more highly ranked teams.

I'd love to see USF play Ohio State. You've got open dates at Ohio Stadium in the future and our AD would be more than happy to fill one of those slots as long as OSU wouldn't drop it. We've already run into midlevel schools signing up to play us and then weaseling out of it. I guess it's because USF suddenly became a legit threat for an upset or became better than some of the teams that we scheduled a couple of years ago.

[furls]

USF wasn't looking for a home/home series from Ohio State. They got one from Michigan State, but that's a different story. They offered to fill one of Ohio State's vacancies in 2009 or 2010 (can't remember which one) and go to Columbus. Ohio State said they were looking for a non-BCS team to fill it up. The impression on our end was that the Buckeyes only wanted one solid out of conference team that could be perceived as a real threat.

Were you directly involved? Sounds like a lot of conjecture to me.

I understand the reluctance of Ohio State to schedule home/home series, but it also seems that they reject teams that would at least rate about equal to a mid-level Big Ten team even if they'd be willing to come to Columbus for the standard rate.

Here is your answer:

Three years ago, the NCAA gave Division I-A schools the right to play 12 games starting in 2006. Ohio State went into the process with three general guidelines:

At least seven home games, eight when possible, to help meet the nearly $100 million athletic department budget.
In-state opponents, especially Mid-American Conference schools, when possible, thus "keeping the revenue in state," Smith said. "That's important to us." Youngstown State and Kent State will receive $650,000 each. Akron, which agreed to its game years earlier, will receive $375,000.
Keep playing at least one major intersectional opponent each year on a home-and-home basis.
Next year, the Buckeyes play at Southern California, then play host to the Trojans in 2009. They play host to Miami in 2010 before going there in 2011. Then comes California for two years, Virginia Tech for two years and Oklahoma for two years.

Washington -- it played in the Rose Bowl just seven years ago -- was supposed to be that beefy nonconference game this season. But with the Huskies, in their third year under Ty Willingham, coming off a 5-7 record, the matchup seems less compelling.

Youngstown State, which Ohio State coach Jim Tressel previously directed to four national titles, made it to the Division I-AA semifinals last season. And Akron is picked to finish third in the Mid-American Conference East Division, behind Kent State.

"There needs to be respect for the Miami of Ohios, the Kent States -- that conference has some very good football programs," Smith said. "The reality is Buckeye football Saturdays are an experience as well.

"So I understand people's concerns, but we have to keep in mind we are playing in a very tough conference as well."

Tressel knows that better than anyone.

"I was on board, totally, with the philosophy … to have a national home-and-home (series) going on, like the one we are finishing with Washington, and to have our in-state teams have an opportunity, because we need home games," Tressel said. "We have 36 sports, unlike most people, and that (income) is very necessary."

Pretty clear to me and it seems like that is what Florida universities are trying to do by armtwisting their schools into playing with each other.

our AD would be more than happy to fill one of those slots as long as OSU wouldn't drop it.

I am sure that there is a rather long list of schools that would be ok with coming to Ohio Stadium for $650,000. In the end, for one reason or another it isn't going to happen. You can point the finger at Ohio State, for USF not getting the games that you claim it wants, but I don't see USC, Oklahoma, VaTech, Texas, or Cal on USF's docket. You can say it is because they are all afraid of USF if you like, but think long and hard before you do.

Ohio State counts on some strength of schedule from its conference, but guarantees some by scheduling a premier program every year. That is a step that a lot of other schools don't make.

[FUDU]

IMO guys bottom line is the rankings of conferences at the end of the year greatly relies upon the best team of one conference beating the best team of another conference.

IE Florida v OSU.

Florida won that ONE game so the whole conference gets the favorable nod when stacked against the Big Ten.

Is it fair, eh maybe. Is it accurate, no way.

No way two conferences can be judged upon one game like that.

The way conferences should be compared is over time, 5-10 years. B/C generally conferences have a change in the balance of power over that time span.

I mean the second ranked team in the country last year ended up being a Big Ten team, the Buckeyes, first was Florida.

Does that mean that since Florida won that head to head match up that most or all SEC teams would beat OSU or most Big Ten teams, no way. Maybe Michigan beats Florida heads up. Maybe OSU crushes LSU heads up, then what which conference is best then.

Why would Auburn give OSU or michigan a good game at all? Just b/c Florida beat OSU?

It's nuts.

If somebody want s to view things over a longer haul then fine I can respect their analysis. But if they just want to look at one specific year to judge conferences then I say they are wasting their time.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Were you directly involved? Sounds like a lot of conjecture to me.

No, but I'm well connected at USF and with sports in the Tampa/Orlando area in general. I've spoken Doug Woolard, the AD for the school, about it.

Here is your answer:

Three years ago, the NCAA gave Division I-A schools the right to play 12 games starting in 2006. Ohio State went into the process with three general guidelines:

At least seven home games, eight when possible, to help meet the nearly $100 million athletic department budget.
In-state opponents, especially Mid-American Conference schools, when possible, thus "keeping the revenue in state," Smith said. "That's important to us." Youngstown State and Kent State will receive $650,000 each. Akron, which agreed to its game years earlier, will receive $375,000.
Keep playing at least one major intersectional opponent each year on a home-and-home basis.
Next year, the Buckeyes play at Southern California, then play host to the Trojans in 2009. They play host to Miami in 2010 before going there in 2011. Then comes California for two years, Virginia Tech for two years and Oklahoma for two years.

Washington -- it played in the Rose Bowl just seven years ago -- was supposed to be that beefy nonconference game this season. But with the Huskies, in their third year under Ty Willingham, coming off a 5-7 record, the matchup seems less compelling.

Youngstown State, which Ohio State coach Jim Tressel previously directed to four national titles, made it to the Division I-AA semifinals last season. And Akron is picked to finish third in the Mid-American Conference East Division, behind Kent State.

"There needs to be respect for the Miami of Ohios, the Kent States -- that conference has some very good football programs," Smith said. "The reality is Buckeye football Saturdays are an experience as well.

"So I understand people's concerns, but we have to keep in mind we are playing in a very tough conference as well."

Tressel knows that better than anyone.

"I was on board, totally, with the philosophy … to have a national home-and-home (series) going on, like the one we are finishing with Washington, and to have our in-state teams have an opportunity, because we need home games," Tressel said. "We have 36 sports, unlike most people, and that (income) is very necessary."

Sounds like a good excuse to schedule weak opponents.

Pretty clear to me and it seems like that is what Florida universities are trying to do by armtwisting their schools into playing with each other.

How so? The Florida legislature is thinking about arm twisting for the BCS teams that are state run and funded schools. Miami is exempt because it's private. The state is not getting involved to force UF, USF, or FSU to play UCF, Florida International, or Florida Atlantic. We scheduled UCF when we were in CUSA and signed a contract with them. Florida Atlantic was added when bigger opponents either cancelled us or weren't interested.

I am sure that there is a rather long list of schools that would be ok with coming to Ohio Stadium for $650,000. In the end, for one reason or another it isn't going to happen. You can point the finger at Ohio State, for USF not getting the games that you claim it wants, but I don't see USC, Oklahoma, VaTech, Texas, or Cal on USF's docket. You can say it is because they are all afraid of USF if you like, but think long and hard before you do.

We have played Oklahoma in the past. We've contacted most all the teams on that list. They aren't interested even if we take less than the standard fee. Ohio State wasn't either because I know Woolard offered to take less. Did the same for Wisconsin, Michigan, and Penn State. No takers.

Ohio State counts on some strength of schedule from its conference, but guarantees some by scheduling a premier program every year. That is a step that a lot of other schools don't make.

Most of the schools that have been big names over the past several years try to do that. Some go the extra step and schedule more tough games. The standard for schools that want to compete for the top spots every year is to schedule a tough early season opponent when they are outside of the SEC. The SEC teams tend to schedule soft out of conference because the strength of conference tends to elevate all the schedules in the SEC.

As for Ohio State and USF, Woolard came away with the impression that USF was considered too strong to be on the schedule. Ohio State wanted a really tough team on the schedule and powder puffs to fill out the rest. Like I said, it's the standard. I'd love to see USF or another Big East team play the Big Ten teams, but the Big Ten doesn't want to damage itself too much with out of conference schedules.

[furls]

We have played Oklahoma in the past. We've contacted most all the teams on that list. They aren't interested even if we take less than the standard fee. Ohio State wasn't either because I know Woolard offered to take less. Did the same for Wisconsin, Michigan, and Penn State. No takers.

so you are telling me that every team in the country is afraid to play USF? Its laughable.

The Florida legislature is thinking about arm twisting for the BCS teams that are state run and funded schools.

Like Ohio State is state run and state funded, so maybe some in the organization feel that giving back to Ohio football programs is an obligation.

As for Ohio State and USF, Woolard came away with the impression that USF was considered too strong to be on the schedule. Ohio State wanted a really tough team on the schedule and powder puffs to fill out the rest.

Or maybe OSU saw USF as being no better for their schedule than the MAC teams that they have already said they give preferrential treatment to. I am not going to debate you on conversations that you claim to have directly had with the USF AD without some type of verification. If you can in fact verify this, then I recommend you go to USA Today or something with it and help your Bulls out. Get them to pen an article called plight of the little team that wanted to or something...

Most of the schools that have been big names over the past several years try to do that.

Exactly my point. Most teams run the same type of scheduling and right now USF just isn't worthy of a top billing and does not provide any national "umph." Sad fact, but it is true. Most of the country wouldn't know the difference between OSU scheduling USF or UCF.

I don't find it hard to believe that OSU rebuked USF, if I were the AD making a schedule I would have too, opting instead to pick up a historicallly better program, an elite team, and two MAC teams.

Unless you can substantiate your claims with some type of print evidence, then I am done debating it. Your position is clear, but I am not buying it. There is no way you are going to convince me that every major school in the nation is afraid to play USF.

Would I like to see more compelling non-conference games? Sure, but with today's paradigm it isn't going to happen not until the NCAA places some emphasis on S.o.S.

[bks92]

A.S.U. beat U.M. maybe they will lose some respect and it will go to our Ohio State Buckeyes.

[FUDU]

I'm not going to pretend to know anything about USF, other than what it stands for and where it is located, however I find it hard to buy into the fact that big programs are not comfortable putting USF on their schedule.

Especially after the recent years in which OSU has gone and signed Texas, a school predicted to be a BCS and possibly NC team each of the two years the games were played.

Before that we had NC St, Marshall for a couple of years each. I would guess it is reasonable to put those two programs and a USF on an even slate.

We have to remember schedules are attempted to be set up years in advance for the most part, and there is an infinite number of games on these schedules. 8 or more often taken up by REQUIRED conference match ups, leaving 3-5 OOC games per year?...and teams are supposed to fill up every one of those OOC games with the best out of state competition out there? No way.

[leadpipe]

This is getting way off track.

Furls, let it be known that I understood your, innocent at the time point, that the Big Ten played the toughest BOWL schedule last year by far.

That is an unarguable point.

[Hi Oktane]

Has anyone noticed/mentioned that scUM is in the midst of a 3-game losing streak dating back to last year's game against the Bucks? And they have Oregon, Notre Dame, and PSU up next before a breather (perhaps) against Northwestern.