How Not To Fix Boston College Football
by Brian Favat on Oct 11, 2011 8:00 AM EDT
in Boston College Football
Email
Print
Last week, I jotted down five humble suggestions on how to fix Boston College football. Today, we present rule #21 on how NOT to fix Boston College football.
"Next, the school simply needs to schedule more local teams. And no, Maine does not count as a "local" team. For the BC football team, this means playing UMass (which moves to FBS next year) every single season, as well as playing schools with football teams in the states immediately surrounding Massachusetts. If the school schedule schools like UConn, UNH, UVM, Harvard, URI and so on, they would have a better chance of getting people locally to see their product, as many people have ties to these schools.
Of course, with the fact that the school has to play its allotted ACC games, you can't schedule local opponents every time. But really, what good does playing Weber State, Kent State or other teams of that caliber do for you? The Eagles should open their seasons with at least two or three games with local flavor, while still managing to keep a competitive schedule."
While I have a ton of respect for the SB Nation Boston crew and the yeoman's work they do covering Boston sports, this is a guaranteed way of how NOT to fix Boston College football.
Maine may not be "local," but the Black Bears will soon become one of only two Division I-AA opponents left in New England after Northeastern's decision to drop football in 2010 (New Hampshire is the other). With UMass' jump to I-A and Rhode Island's jump down to the NEC, BC is literally left with only two I-AA New England opponents to schedule. BC won't be able to count a win over Rhode Island towards bowl eligibility after URI completes the move to the NEC and we aren't getting credit for beating up on the Harvard or Holy Cross programs, either. Vermont has only a club football program and some less than stringent recruiting requirements. I'm not sure BC could count a win over UVM towards Military Bowl eligibility.
Which leaves us with UMass and UConn. Now I can't speak for everyone, but I personally have no ties to either of these schools. As an out-of-town season ticket holder, scheduling these programs is a sure fire way to get me to stay home on Saturdays. And more than a lot of other Division I-A programs, Boston College is heavily reliant on the out-of-town season ticket holders for filling Alumni Stadium on Saturdays.
If you want a better chance of getting people to see the BC football product, then you need to schedule nationally, not locally. USC (2013, 2014), Notre Dame (2012, 2015, 2016, 2018 and 2019) and Army (2012-2015) should do the trick. Not UMass, UConn, Harvard, Dartmouth, Boston University and Saint Anselm College.
Granted, this program has a lot of problems, but the Eagles' future non-conference schedule is not one of them.
58 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The only problem is that we need to be good enough to play teams like USC and ND without getting thoroughly embarrassed.
Owner of http://www.fearthesword.com/
by Conrad Kaczmarek on Oct 11, 2011 8:09 AM EDT reply actions
What?
The article loses all credibility when the author suggests playing Harvard (can’t, no Ivies allowed, sorry) and UVM (did he even check to make sure they had a team?).
This clearly speaks to how out of touch with college football most Boston fans are. Well, that and wearing Bruschi jerseys to BC home games….
Fair enough...
Fair enough on the UVM and Harvard points, and a good case is made here, I agree. I still think that playing UConn and UMass more often isn’t a bad thing for the program. Either way, I think we all agree on this point – if the on-field product doesn’t get better, then it’s pretty hopeless.
Gethin Coolbaugh is the Regional Editor at SB Nation Boston. He can be reached at gethin.coolbaugh@yahoo.com. Visit Gethin's official website at www.gethincoolbaugh.com and follow him on Twitter @GethinCoolbaugh.
by Gethin Coolbaugh on Oct 11, 2011 9:57 AM EDT reply actions
How is playing UMass good for the program?
If you assume that the I-AA game is here to stay (safe assumption), and that the ACC will move to a nine-game schedule after Syracuse and Pittsburgh join (also pretty safe assumption), then you are left with two slots on the annual non-conference schedule (since UMass is no longer a I-AA opponent).
Pointless to waste one of your two remaining non-conference slots on a MAC program that plays in your own backyard, that will be televised on ESPN3.com (at best) and will draw 30k.
BC-UMass drew 30,176 this year. Worse than Wake Forest. Worse than Duke.
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Oct 11, 2011 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions
As for UConn ...
Just, no.
More than that, the Rent seats 40k. Alumni 44.5k. I fail to see the logic behind UConn fan’s assertion that BC-UConn annually would be a way of “printing money.” This isn’t Duke-North Carolina hoops.
Even if you manage to play the game annually at Gillette — which may prove difficult considering UMass is moving all home games there + Patriots home schedule — that game will be far from a sellout, and removes a home game for both programs from the annual schedule, decreasing revenue.
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Oct 11, 2011 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions
Brian, I have to disagree
I agree that you should always have 1 or 2 premiere non-conference opponents on the slate, but the way BCS conference scheduling works is that you need the gimme games to remain competitve. Scheduling USC, Notre Dame, and Michigan or whoever looks great as far as filling the stadium, but no so much when you go into ACC play 0-3. Assuming 9 conference games, you’re going to want 1 game vs. a 1-AA, 1 game vs. a high caliber opponent, and 1-game vs. a bad FBS team. There are very few bad FBS teams that could fill as many seats as UMass. Army is the exception, not the rule. Especially if you could get the Umass game at Gillette, it would be a financial coup. Plugging a 2nd power team in there could be more attractive, but it would also mean probably having to agree to a home and home (1 whole game of missed revenue) as opposed to a possibly 2-1 with UMass, and it also means a likely 1-2 nonconference record instead of 2-1 which is huge.
There are very few bad FBS teams that could fill as many seats as UMass.
I have to disagree. This year’s UMass game was the second worst attended home game of the last five years. 30,176. Only the 2009 game against Kent State had a lower attendance (25,165).
There are plenty of middling MAC and C-USA programs that you can get 2:1 with that take you to a different part of the country and help with recruiting. Playing in your own backyard against a local FBS opponent in a game that is televised on ESPN3.com does not help the program.
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Oct 11, 2011 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Do you really think playing Toledo the week of the UMass game instead would’ve boosted attendance? Attendance is down because the team is awful not because it’s UMass. Playing Toledo on ESPN3 doesn’t help the program, and really doesn’t help with recruiting Toledo. It does put a charter flight on the budget though, and makes it harder for BC fans to attend the road game.
If you get a 2:1 and get to play in the Midwest in a year where you don’t play in South Bend or Evanston, this is more beneficial than playing at Gillette.
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Oct 11, 2011 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
From my perspective, the fact that UMass drew just 30k with both programs down is still a red flag for scheduling this game annually. Where were all the UMass fans?
This was literally UMass’ Super Bowl. They are supposed to be building buzz towards a move to the MAC and I-A. Instead, the UMass game was on ESPN3 and we had our second worst home attendance of the last 5 years (which includes games against far away nobodies like Weber State and local nobodies like Northeastern and URI).
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Oct 11, 2011 1:26 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
You are 1-5 and your fanbase is apathetic.
That is why nobody is showing up. It’s not UMass’ fault despite your best efforts to blame us.
by Go Minutemen on Oct 11, 2011 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Equal Blame
I was there, the UMass section was completely empty. Sure BC fans didn’t show up in droves, but neither did the UMass crew. Wasn’t this going to be the game that showed the rest of the world that the Minutemen were ready for D1 football? I figured UMass fans would have flocked in droves to see if they could take out a bad BC team. Chestnut Hill is almost exactly the same distance from UMass as Foxoborough.
But your fans proved Brian’s point.
Writer at BC Interruption SBN's Boston College Eagles blog
Follow me on Twitter
When the ACC moves to a 9-game schedule, BC should play:
- Notre Dame
- A traditional non-conference non-AQ program (Army, Navy, etc.), and
- A I-AA opponent (New Hampshire, Maine) every season.
That’s easily 2-1, not 1-2.
We don’t play USC and Notre Dame in the same year, nor would I advocate that. In years where we don’t get Notre Dame, we definitely need at least one high-profile BCS AQ program (USC, Stanford, Penn State, etc.).
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Oct 11, 2011 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with that schedule
But you can’t schedule Army or Navy every year, and on the year’s when you can’t get them, the list of other prestigious non-AQ programs is very short (other than the auto-loss ones like Boise). I can’t think of many others. SMU? UNLV? Hawaii? Good luck getting them to Chestnut Hill. Maybe Temple. Otherwise, I’d advocate for a local nobody (UMass) over a far away nobody.
The Big East is quickly becoming a source of scheduling these other non-AQ programs that will be decent draws on the Heights: Army, Navy, Temple, Villanova (no UConn).
Even if you can’t get Army or Navy every year, there’s no shortage of opponents that you can find to slot into just one spot on the schedule — after the I-AA game and the game against a BCS AQ opponent.
Editor, BC Interruption
almost agree entirely
-Notre Dame
-Either trad. non-conference, but projected win (Army, Navy, etc.) OR marquee program (USC, Penn State, etc.) that is a projected loss
-Either I-AA opponent (on years when we’ve scheduled both ND and a marquee program) OR if we have no such program scheduled play someone like Northwestern as we did this season
This OOC schedule should always reflect a projected 2-1 on good years, 1-2 on average/less than satisfactory years, or 0-3 on awful years like this one… I don’t even want the consolation single win we get from playing a team like UMass, so unless their program becomes higher profile leave them entirely off the schedule
by bloomsday16 on Oct 11, 2011 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The goal IMO should always be to win as many games as possible no matter what. The BCS is stacked so that if you’re in an AQ league, who you play in non-conference doesn’t matter at all. All that matters is if you win. You get about 3 times as much help from beating a 1-AA team as you do from losing to a top 5 team. That’s the reality of the system. Only reason to play good schools is to increase attendance/revenue/recruiting and that needs to be balanced with won-loss record (which is arguably just as important for all of the above).
If we suck, and schedule 3 cupcakes, and then go 3-6 in conference, but win our easy games, now we’re 6-6 and bowl eligible. We’re probably in a bad bowl against a bad team and now we’re 7-6. If we play 3 good teams and go 0-3, then we’re 3-9 and miss a bowl. Now, the following year, attendance and recruiting will look much better coming off a 7-6 year with a bowl win, than a 3-9 year. Nobody’s going to remember who we played.
well...
like you just said: its a balancing game (i.e., you cannot privilege one aspect above the other), and then you went on to explain what the benefits of playing 3 cupcakes would be, essentially privileging one side of the scale over the other.
Nobody here is saying we can improve the program just by scheduling great OOC opponents, of course we also need to beat those programs… But if the goal is to improve the visibility, not just the BCS bowl ranking, we have to play in games that people will watch. I would take 2-1 splitting a win with a loss between notre dame and another marquee program and vice versa over any season in which we go 3-0 in OOC play but have no impressive opponents. BC’s strength is not in its hometown fans, boston is at best apathetic and at worst antagonistic to any success we have, rather our goal should be to impress the out of town alumni by providing match ups they want to travel back to chestnut hill for or watch somewhere other than espn3
by bloomsday16 on Oct 11, 2011 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Sorry, I was explainging why 3 cupcakes would be beneficial to 3 marquee programs. Of course, it’s a balencing game and I think all that you and I disagree on is what the 3rd game should be. You think it should be a stronger program and I think it should be a weaker program. I don’t think there’s a clear cut answer to that one and we could go back and forth on the pros/cons all day. The clear point to make is that there should always be 1 marquee program, 1 guarantee game, and 1 middle ground game where we’re just going to have different philosophies.
yep
and to me that middle ground one is already taken care of by the fact that our history with ND is already pretty much a 50-50 so we want to try and get another marquee program besides them and then one “cupcake”, and if we can’t get get the second marquee have two games we should win, but neither of them being without a doubt victories
Agreed, but there is literally only one spot left on the schedule after the I-AA opponent (typically of a local flavor, Weber State was a one-off which filled a whole left by Northeastern shuttering its program … or maybe that was Hofstra, either way).
Especially if you assume that the I-AA game and a 9-game ACC schedule are foregone conclusions.
It would be a waste to schedule UMass every year, considering there are plenty of other mid-tier programs that have much more history with the Eagles (Army, Navy, Villanova … if they make the jump, etc.) or AQ programs that have more institutional similarities to BC (Northwestern, USC, Stanford, Vanderbilt, etc.).
Editor, BC Interruption
let's see
You crap on UMass for weak scheduling when we have Vandy on the schedule but it’s cool if you schedule them?
by Go Minutemen on Oct 11, 2011 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Please re-read
The suggestion of Northwestern, USC, Vanderbilt, etc. was for a second BCS AQ opponent, after Notre Dame and a I-AA. All those schools that are institutionally similar to BC — private schools, top 50 academics nationally.
Imo BC should schedule like Northwestern, who has Cal, Vanderbilt, Rice, Syracuse, Duke, BC, Notre Dame, and Stanford all on the future schedule. Northwestern’s AD has made it very clear he wants to schedule peer academic schools in non-conference play, with the theory that if you beat them on the gridiron, you make a HS kid considering both programs decision that much easier.
In UMass’ case, Vanderbilt is the marquee AQ opponent on UMass’ schedule in 2015.
You don’t see the difference here?
Editor, BC Interruption
“But if the goal is to improve the visibility, not just the BCS bowl ranking, we have to play in games that people will watch. I would take 2-1 splitting a win with a loss between notre dame and another marquee program and vice versa over any season in which we go 3-0 in OOC play but have no impressive opponents. BC’s strength is not in its hometown fans, boston is at best apathetic and at worst antagonistic to any success we have, rather our goal should be to impress the out of town alumni by providing match ups they want to travel back to chestnut hill for or watch somewhere other than espn3.”
This is my point. The goal should be to increase the exposure/visibility of the program nationally. Schedule a 1:1 with a program on the West Coast to cater to the West coast alumni (USC). Get Notre Dame on the future schedule as much as possible.
Playing UMass and a local I-AA does nothing to increase the exposure/visibility of the program, nor does it make out-of-town alumni particularly happy.
Editor, BC Interruption
This discussions is showing each of our personal biases and thoughts towards the program. I am not an alum. I live in Newton and grew up around the program. I know 2 people that went to BC (a football player and a baseball player) and 1 professor there. Everyone I know who likes BC likes it for the same reason I do, which is that we grew up watching the consecutive bowl streak, the Matt Ryan years, and the 2001-2006 bball stretch.
I agree that I’m probably discounting the national fanbase because of my experience, but I think you’re both discounting the local fanbase because of yours. In the end, the local fanbase is the one that’s going to show up on gameday.
I should also add
I went to Maryland. While there I worked very closely with the Assistant AD for Ticket Serivces on increasing home football attendance. I know what works and what doesn’t work at a school like that, and those are the principles I’ve mainly applied to this discussion. However, UMD relies almost entirely on the local community as opposed to a national fan base. The national fan base doesn’t matter at all for Maryland. I realize that that’s not the case here, so I’m trying to adapt to the situation.
Didn’t you say that Maryland is obligated to play a I-AA opponent from within the state every year too? As a private school, Boston College doesn’t have this restriction.
Editor, BC Interruption
Which is very good for BC. Maryland’s problem is that there are local cupcakes that can draw (Delaware, James Madison, etc) and then there are schools like Towson, UMES, and Coppin St. which are the schools MD is forced to play that do nothing for them, and because they are forced to play these schools, they can’t schedule the 1-AA schools that actually will bring a crowd.
they can’t schedule the 1-AA schools that actually will bring a crowd.
There are I-AA programs that bring a crowd? There are no local I-AA programs in New England that bring a crowd. Maine, New Hampshire and UMass. That’s the list. URI is dropping down to the NEC. UMass is making the jump to I-A. Northeastern and Hofstra have recently folded its football programs.
A program like Villanova would be a good I-AA opponent for BC, who actually has a long history with the Eagles, but they are now claimed by Temple.
Editor, BC Interruption
yeah, that's a geographic difference
Delaware and JMU both brought a large contingent when MD played them in ‘08 and ’09 respectively. Then they got locked into playing Towson, etc. It’s not really a similar situation to the one BC faces (in fact it’s not similar at all) but you brought it up so I was explaining what was going on
Fordham recently started offering scholarships and is another Jesuit Catholic school (that UConn played this year). Would be an OK I-AA opponent from an institutional fit perspective but I don’t think hardly anyone attended that game at UConn this year.
Editor, BC Interruption
Basic math
My wife and I are out-of-town season ticket holders. We didn’t bother to go up to the Wake, UMass or Duke games, and also didn’t bother to resell our tickets on the secondary market (given the glut of tickets on the secondary market — GDF was practically given them away on GroupOn — and the fact that we’d only probably recoup $5 on each ticket … if we could sell them to begin with).
So we both eat our tickets for games against lesser opponents. As someone has mentioned in the comments section before, BC counts attendance at the game; not tickets sold. So if my family eats our season tickets, that’s two less seats that will not count towards a sell out.
Does this make me a bad season ticket holder? Maybe. But if BC scheduled some actual non-conference opponents, I’d be motivated to either 1) get up to Chestnut Hill on Saturday or 2) resell my tickets on the secondary market given that I can get some value back for them.
Scheduling local, upstart opponents that no one cares about … you will never sell out Alumni. I know I’m not alone in this practice, and that’s why non-conference games against non BCS AQ programs average 40k or less on average.
Editor, BC Interruption
its not about how many people show up
It’s about how many tickets you sell and how much revenue you generate. BC is perfectly happy to have you not show up, and get UMass fans to buy tickets and make money on both of you. They get your money whether you decide to come or not.
But they don’t get the money from concessions and merchandise, and the local community doesn’t get the bump it would if my family shows up. If you think the school doesn’t care if 30k show up (and an additional 14k buy tickets) or if 44k show up, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Low per-game attendance reflects poorly on the AD and the program. They certainly care whether a season ticket holder shows up.
Editor, BC Interruption
lol at BC caring about the "local community"
that made my day right there
BC/ BC’s AD totally care if we show up (and specifically what time we show up)
by bloomsday16 on Oct 11, 2011 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
nor does it even technically increase the fan base of BC… all the people who seem to be advocating the UMass-BC matchup are highlighting how it will supposedly make saturday at alumni more rocking (assertions not supported by fact) because it pits two New England schools against one another… but what does this do to increase the fanbase of BC? Either nothing or worse it has a negative effect. Any attendance spike (which as Brian constantly has to point out doesn’t actually happen) would simply be UMass students/alumni showing up to watch the underdog take on BC. The game will only be played on New England television making us a less visible program while doing nothing positive except for solidifying whichever team each fan ALREADY roots for.
Instead WE need to be the underdog in national match-ups if we wish to extend into an arena where there’s potential to cultivate a fanbase (i.e., NOT BOSTON)
Losing to USC on national television will not win us fans in Los Angeles, or anywhere else for that mattter. Nonconference games won’t win us fans period. The only way to win new fans who don’t have a real connection to the school is to establish ourselves as a consistently elite program. That means 9 wins MINNIMUM every year with a good number of 10 and maybe 11 win seasons mixed in. The only way to do that is to go unbeaten in nonconference play. Wins are everything. Again, nobody cares who you beat or who you lose to. They just care that you win. Win and you get ranked. Get ranked and you get national exposure every week regardless of who you play. Get ranked and you get a few minutes to yourself on ESPN even when you beat a 1-AA team. That’s how you get fans. Win win win. All that matters.
The only way to win new fans who don’t have a real connection to the school is to establish ourselves as a consistently elite program.
No matter how many wins you rack up over UMass, UConn, Stony Brook, Rhode Island, Vermont and BU, this doesn’t make you an elite program. Particularly a program like BC, who is fighting an uphill battle to be recognized as a consistently elite program.
And alumni very much care whether you get to LA every so often and play where you live. So the question becomes do you first cater towards 1) sidewalk alumni who may give the program a marginal boost to per-game attendance or 2) alumni who make Flynn Fund donations, purchase season tickets and get their kids to attend games or eventually BC for college?
The choice is very clear in my mind.
Editor, BC Interruption
Use the blockquote function – when replying click on the quotation marks icon above the posting space. Then paste what you want to quote between the code that comes up. Preview to ensure success.
I think there are two camps here:
- Kids from New England / Massachusetts who may or may not have attended BC see the value in an annual BC-UMass game
- Alumni that grew up outside of New England (or older alumni from New England) see no benefit in playing an upstart FBS team in your own backyard.
I clearly fall in the second bucket. Gethin over at SBN Boston in the first.
With non-conference dates against I-A opponents soon at a premium (max 2), as an out-of-town alum, see no benefit to scheduling UMass every year.
Editor, BC Interruption
3rd camp
kids from New England / MA who originally saw the value in such a matchup but have been persuaded by logic that national exposure is better for the continued progress of the program
it seems
we’ve come full circle so I’m not going to just restate my arguments, as it appears to me you just did…
Instead, let’s split the world into two separate parallel universes and both crown ourselves as BC’s AD in one or the other, then we’ll try out our different OOC scheduling philosophies… we can then rejoin the two universes and convene to discuss who had greater success in order to determine which one of us won this argument.
Something I can agree with
“Again, nobody cares who you beat or who you lose to. They just care that you win.”
If BC wins and UMass wins, people will want to see them play.
Disagree completely
"Again, nobody cares who you beat or who you lose to. They just care that you win."
Nobody cares who you beat or who you lose to … implies that Doug Flutie’s Hail Mary would still be considered the greatest play in college football history if he pulled out a last second victory against UMass, or that David Gordon’s GW FG would still be remembered if BC beat Temple and not #1 Notre Dame.
This is simply false.
Editor, BC Interruption
We're still gonna play Miami though
And if it were FSU and not Notre Dame nobody would care. We’re not talking about mortgaging the whole schedule. You’re forgetting we still play 9 conference games every year, many of which are against marquee opponent’s. You’re also going to keep at least 1 marquee OOC game (I don’t think it’s a best case scenario, but I agree that BC doesn’t have a choice). That’s 5 or 6 marquee games ever year, and a chance for a play like that to happen. All we’re talking about here is 1 or 2 games.
It comes down to this. What looks better? A 10-2 team playing in a #2 or #3 bowl? Or an 8-4 team that went to South Bend and LA and ends up in the #6 or #7 bowl? I can tell you which one ESPN thinks looks better. I can tell you which one the AP voters think looks better. I can tell you which one an average American viewer thinks looks better too.
“A 10-2 team playing in a #2 or #3 bowl? Or an 8-4 team that went to South Bend and LA and ends up in the #6 or #7 bowl?”
Non-conference record has no bearing on ACC bowl selection. ACC bowl selection is determined by the ACC bowls individually with a few tiebreakers / guidance based in part on conference record, not overall record.
As a small private school that doesn’t travel well, there is already a ceiling on what ACC bowls they can go to. If BC doesn’t win the conference, they aren’t going to the BCS. And they aren’t getting selected for the ACC #2, either, unless they force the Peach Bowl’s hand (read: finish 2 games higher than any other ACC program in the conference standings, which is next to impossible).
With a limited ceiling as to which ACC bowls BC can get to in the first place, a win over Notre Dame or USC improves ESPN’s / AP’s / American viewers opinion of the BC program EXPONENTIALLY more than a 3-0 record against crap opponents.
Are you suggesting that AP voters don’t see through weak non-conference scheduling? Texas Tech, which is notorious for scheduling soft in non-conference play, was 4-0 last week with wins over Texas State, New Mexico, Nevada and Kansas, and still not ranked in the Top 25. Voters and casual fans absolutely see through this.
Editor, BC Interruption
im not bothering to learn the fancy quote thing but,,,
OOC record is absolutely taken into account when selecting who to place in what bowl because overall record is much more of a factor in locals buying tickets to a bowl than the team’s SoS.
Agreed with the bowl ceilling but I really don’t think it’s as bad as you think it is. Peach Bowl may be out, but anything else is in play with a 10-2 finish. 9-3 and you can kiss a #3 bowl goodbye.
Completely disagree with your 3rd paragraph. I think it’s the opposite.
The Texas Tech comparrison shows you don’t really understand the effect of OOC games on AP or other voters. If you’re from an AQ conference, OOC games really can’t help you at all, no matter who you play. They can only hurt you. Voters vote based on conference record, and then look to see how many OOC games you lost, and to who. Good loses reflect better than bad loses but wins against anyone reflect more. Good wins can give you a small boost, but don’t really matter for much, unless it’s a top 10 victory. And in any case, you lose more from a loss than you gain from a win. That’s the reality of how the voting works. If Texas Tech finishes 10-2 (6-2) they will be ranked far higher than if they finish 8-4 (6-2) with loses to LSU and Auburn.
The only teams that are helped by OOC games are non-AQ teams (Boise). For them it’s the opposite and it’s the conference slate that hurts them.
Agreed with the bowl ceilling but I really don’t think it’s as bad as you think it is. Peach Bowl may be out, but anything else is in play with a 10-2 finish. 9-3 and you can kiss a #3 bowl goodbye.
Again, this just isn’t true. ACC bowl selection is driven by attendance / fan base travel rep and informed by ACC record. Not overall record. There is no difference in bowl selection for BC finishing 10-2 or 9-3 given the ACC record is the same.
Editor, BC Interruption
Good loses reflect better than bad loses but wins against anyone reflect more.
No. This is just one voter philosophy. An equally valid one considers quality wins and SOS the same, if not more than, wins over creampuffs.
Lazy voters look at straight wins and losses, but I maintain these type of voters are in the minority. There are plenty of cases where teams schedule tough, have a few early season losses and are ranked higher than teams with a perfect record.
Just last week …
Texas Tech was 4-0. Florida State and Texas A&M were 2-2.
Both Florida State and Texas A&M were still ranked after losing to quality opponents (Clemson, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas). You simply do not get on an AP voters radar by getting off to a fast 4-0 or 5-0 start by beating up on a bunch of cupcakes unless you are a name brand program.
Editor, BC Interruption
if you’re a name brand program you start the year ranked. don’t look at the polls now, look at them at the end. and voters are lazy. hell, when utah went unbeaten a few years ago about 20% of the voters admitted they’d never seen them play
Now or at the end of the season, there is still a clear separation in the polls between teams that schedule tough (and win a few) and those that schedule their way to 4-0 or 5-0. There are plenty of examples of this. Polls will always favor name branded programs, but you are not going to pass those programs by scheduling your way to 10-2 if those programs finish 8-4 or 9-3 against a much more difficult schedule.
And non AQs are definitely not the only teams that are helped (or hurt) by OOC games. Unless you are in the SEC or the B1G Ten, you have an incentive not to schedule soft in non-conference play to make up for the name brand programs that started (and will stay) ahead of you in the polls.
Editor, BC Interruption
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on BC Interruption
Related FanShots on BC Interruption
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
