"Mid-Majors" and consistent arss wupins
Utah stunned me with their mandhandling of the Tide a year ago, and given that Boise State needed statue of liberty "gotcha" type antics to score a win over Oklhahoma a while back, the Utes performance resulted in a reconsideration of my previously consistent stance that these cute little teams have no place with the big boys. The recent two night storm of BYU-UTAH and utter domination of Pac Ten notables has nearly obliterated my previous off-hand dismissal of mid-major competitiveness. Given the system in place, we will never know, but I think that perhaps Texas and Alabama may be lucky to have drawn each other as opposed to Boise (who ass-stomped Oregon) and TCU which has shown flashes of complete and utter defensive domination throughout the year. If the fact, and no longer a hunch, but the FACT that these mid-majors are not only competitive with the big time, big conference schools, but may at teams be vastly superior to the Texases, Oregons, and Bamas of the world, registers with the powers that be, maybe, just maybe, this god-for-saken debacle of a system that has completely deflated my interest in post-season college football will be revisited, and abolished with the quickness.
December 24th, 2009 at 12:35 PM ^
I would consider Michigan one of the lower tier mid-majors.
December 24th, 2009 at 1:31 PM ^
High school winter breaks are far too long these days.
December 24th, 2009 at 1:58 PM ^
Buckeye man do we go over to your message board and point out poor syntax and incorrect grammar? Its Christmas Eve and motorists are relying on you to pass out the exact change and get them through the toll booth promptly...task at hand please.
December 24th, 2009 at 2:06 PM ^
there who I don't know about, but I would like to see an OSU poster along the lines of a guy like Irish on this board. Someone who offers good insight (albeit from the dark side), someone who is knowledgeable, literate, and can be a good sport (Irish endures some pretty arbitrary negbangs from time to time, IMO.) Probably asking for too much.
Santa, if you're online and reading this, throw us a bone, will ya?
December 24th, 2009 at 3:05 PM ^
Poguemahone? Wasn't he an OSU dude? He was a solid poster.
December 24th, 2009 at 3:33 PM ^
Yeah, he got bogged down with WWAHT. Even that's coming to an end, though. They're giving BBC the keys over at SBNation in time for the Rose Bowl. Huge downgrade. BBC has some guys that are very Enlightened Spartan-esque with stupid name calling.
December 24th, 2009 at 8:21 PM ^
This person is obviously a little kid who is immature and thinks it funny to act like a jack-ass. Don't fuel the fire guys.
December 24th, 2009 at 12:36 PM ^
I don't think I'm ready to call them National Championship material just yet, but there is little doubt that some of these teams deserve more credit than they're getting.
If Boise was in the MWC, there's no doubt in my mind they'd be a BCS conference worthy of an auto-bid. Actually, I think the MWC probably deserves in as they are now, but trading a team to the WAC for Boise I think would seal the deal.
The WAC just isn't good enough as a whole. When you've got Utah, BYU, and TCU all ranked and beating BCS schools, that says a lot about the quality of the conference and does wonders for strength of schedule. The WAC, on the other hand, just has Boise. Hawaii is the only other team to make a BCS bowl IIRC, and they were exposed by Georgia. Boise has won enough big games against BCS teams to prove themselves, but their conference schedule strength is horrible compared MWC teams.
December 24th, 2009 at 12:40 PM ^
I agree with most of your points, but one thing that I can't put aside is how do we know Boise is that good every year? Some of these seasons, like last year, they aren't any better than Hawaii was in their BCS season. Last year, same sort of record without a win over an inconsistent Oregon team. They go undefeated and are crushed by TCU. Unless BSU can start getting more of those marquee match-ups, I'm not sure I can validate their BCS auto-bid inclusion just yet - although I'm probably fairly close.
December 24th, 2009 at 1:14 PM ^
They go undefeated and are crushed by TCU.
17-16 = "Crushed"?
December 24th, 2009 at 1:27 PM ^
For some reason I was remembering differently. I stand corrected.
December 24th, 2009 at 12:36 PM ^
I'm all for the MWC getting a bowl tie in to the Fiesta Bowl vs the Big12. It already seems that "We Will Always Have Tempe" is going under the same year the Buckeyes make the Rose Bowl. The MWC can just take OSU's annual spot there from now on.
December 24th, 2009 at 1:59 PM ^
If you were to moove Bosie State to the MWC it would make for 4 really good teams kind of like the PAC-10.
December 24th, 2009 at 1:12 PM ^
I'm surprised that BYU won, but not Utah. Cal is not a good team even though they have a decent record. Their QB has been horrible all year. I don't think Boise St. or TCU could beat Alabama, but it wouldn't be a total blowout. One of them might be able to beat Texas, who I think is overrated.
December 24th, 2009 at 2:20 PM ^
Oregon St. maybe would have won if Jaquizz and James Rodgers didn't play like shit.
December 24th, 2009 at 3:03 PM ^
Or maybe they would have one if the BYU defense wasnt all over the Rodgers brothers. The BYU linebackers and secondary played their best collective game of the season. Just sayin
December 24th, 2009 at 3:57 PM ^
Oregon State maybe would have won if they cared about the game.
December 24th, 2009 at 5:10 PM ^
I HAAAAAAAATE this line of logic. Every year, when Utah, or TCU, or BSU, or BYU beats someone we get to hear how "_____ didn't care". Well how convenient! Isn't part of being "good", you know, being motivated?
I played competitive sports at high levels for more than 10 years and not once, regardless of record, did I hop in a pool or step on a field not wanting to win the game. Nobody likes getting their ass whipped - I don't buy that these guys stopped caring because they were in this pointless exhibition game as opposed to a different pointless exhibition game.
And if the line of logic DOES stand - maybe we should start stocking our bowls with teams that give a shit - like BYU or Utah?
December 24th, 2009 at 1:16 PM ^
I will admitt that I am a BYU fan, Michigan will always be my favorite, but I will probably be at BYU next year because of financial reasons, but the MWC is a good conference. If you look at the recent head to head matchups with the Pac-10, I believe the MWC has a winning record. They are 2-0 this bowl season against our friends out west. While it is true that they dont have the overall conference depth, the top 3 teams, Utah, BYU, and TCU, could compete in any of the other automatic qualifying conferences, especially ones like the Big East
December 24th, 2009 at 1:33 PM ^
Frankly with all of the talk of conference expansion, I'd love to see Utah or Boise State go to the PAC-10. And after they end the season with losses to Wazzou or Arizona, we'd all think, huh, a full, real conference schedule really does change things.
December 24th, 2009 at 2:24 PM ^
You mean the way a full conference schedule causes us to look down on Florida for losing to Ole Miss, USC for losing to Oregon State, or Oregon for giving up 52 points to Stanford?
/doublestandard
December 24th, 2009 at 2:31 PM ^
I don't think many people think of Boise, Utah, or TCU as perennial national title contenders. I will, however, look down upon a team that struggles with UC Davis throughout much of the first half and then continues to whine about how they are the most deserving team to play in the national championship game. Then again, I also look down upon any team that whines about how they deserve to be in the national championship game. Looking at you Urban.
December 24th, 2009 at 3:50 PM ^
I seem to recall Texas struggling throughout most of the first half against Wyoming. Does that mean that they don't deserve to play in the national championship?
December 24th, 2009 at 3:59 PM ^
1. UC Davis =/= Wyoming. Texas also ended up winning that game 41-10.
2. Texas may very well get blown out of the NC game as it is. But Texas also played Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, A&M (ehhh), and Mizzou.
December 24th, 2009 at 4:30 PM ^
My point is that almost every team has a bad half or a bad game every once in a while. Even if a non-BCS team dominates inferior opponents every week, they still don't get respect. Take a look at Utah's 2004 team. They won their closest game that season by 14 and still got no respect.
That schedule that Texas played this year wasn't too impressive either. Only Oklahoma St. and Nebraska ended up ranked in the final BCS standings (19 & 22 respectively). TCU beat BYU and Utah who finished 14 & 23 respectively. I'm not saying that TCU deserves to be in the championship game over Texas, but I don't think Texas really deserves to be in over TCU either. The only reason that Texas is getting the nod is because of the conference perceptions about the Big 12 and the MWC.
December 24th, 2009 at 5:21 PM ^
OK, so if you take their top 5 wins:
Texas:
OK State (9-3)
Nebraska (9-4)
TTU (8-4)
Mizzou (8-4)
Oklahoma (7-5)
(41-20 record)
TCU:
BYU (10-2 prior to bowl)
Utah (9-3 prior to bowl)
Clemson (8-5)
Air Force (7-5)
Wyoming (6-6 prior to bowl)
(40-21 record)
So...can we claim a huge difference, really? You can continue to hang your hat on one performance of one mid-major that few people have advocated for the national championship game, or look at the broader picture - these "mid-major" teams are becoming as good as the big boys.
I'm not saying that BSU or TCU should be in the MNC in place of Texas - but wouldn't it be cool to let them on the same field sometime?
December 24th, 2009 at 4:39 PM ^
UC Davis = slightly better than .500 Division II team
Wyoming = just won a bowl game
December 24th, 2009 at 4:49 PM ^
Actually, UC Davis lost 51-0 to Fresno State this year. This is the same Fresno State team that Wyoming just defeated in it's bowl game.
December 24th, 2009 at 3:17 PM ^
While I think that both Boise State and TCU are very strong teams, I find it somewhat of a mute point that they are playing each other in bowl game this year. Would have really liked to see them both up against someone different then each other. After the game is done only one questions will be answered and that is which of these two mid major teams is better then the other, as far as how well they would have competed against a Texas, Alabama, or Florida, It still goes unanswered.
I'm also on the side that I don't fully know what to think of any of these mid major teams going to stronger conferences. Would the grind of a stronger conference season wear these teams down and expose them talent wise? Or would it expose the likes of the Pac 10 or Big 12 and show that they are not as strong as what we are led to believe?
December 24th, 2009 at 3:36 PM ^
Well, the one glaring flaw in your analysis is that the PAC10 is not very good. In about every evaluation of BCS conferences the PAC10 is rated as worst or next to worst.
And, yes, the BIG10 is rated about as poorly as the PAC10.
http://www.gberatings.com/conf/
http://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/strength-of-schedu…
December 26th, 2009 at 3:02 PM ^
If MWC teams can dominate teams from a "not good" conference that is a member of the BCS, then why shouldn't the MWC be part of the BCS?
December 24th, 2009 at 10:58 PM ^
The mid-majors get a bit of welfare if there isn't a better word for it.
The NCAA and the BCS itself has made a lot of little to big rules to promote parity that didn't exist a few decades ago.
Everything from the reducing of scholarships (hurting the players) across the board so the mid-majors can scoop up more top talent to limiting the size and number of color glossy pages a media guide can have.
Even the BCS gives out money to every division and every conference every single year.
Perhaps if we go to a playoff we should reduce some of these newer rules for parity.
December 25th, 2009 at 9:22 AM ^
The scholarship limits weren't enacted to achieve parity, they were enacted partly because of Title IX, and, on a related point, the excessive, prohibitive cost of those scholarships (and the funding of a similiar number of female sport scholarships) would make being financially self-sustaining virtually impossible. This would siphon of $$ spent on other sports, and make the AD financially dependent on the school, which would hurt the institution at large.
December 25th, 2009 at 8:53 PM ^
Even regarding the intent of the scholarship reductions there are a lot of rules that were directly created to achieve parity or indirectly do.
Perhaps I heard it from a biased source, but I have attended a conference on Title IX (I coach a girl's sport) and they seem to think this is one of the many things blamed on Title IX unfairly.
Title IX was meant to have equal scholarship opportunities for males and females. The money spent on girl sports does not have to be similar to the money spent on boys sports. Some sports cost more and some sports raise more revenue and therefore deserve more money put into it. It is about opportunities (fair numbers of scholarships).
You could theoretically, have 400 scholarships for football (absurd), so long as you are equally giving girl athletes the same kind of scholarship opportunities for sports. They said that the reduction of football scholarships came out just after Title IX more as an excuse for parity within the sport under the new rules.
I honestly don't know too much about the subject -- is that mostly hogwash to put a better spin on Title IX in your estimation? They also talked about wrestling coaches and players losing their jobs/scholarships etc.
December 25th, 2009 at 11:08 PM ^
Well, the cost of a scholarship is the cost of a scholarship - it doesn't matter if it's girls field hockey or football, they should be the same cost. I'm not trying to "blame Title IX", as I think it's basically a good idea that the University's utilized a bad way. I think it is sort of absurd for the school to endow 120 football scholarships and, as a result, not field a girl's soccer team - I don't see that as fair. My main point is that the rule isn't "hurting student athletes" as your suggested, but more creating opportunities for different student athletes.
December 26th, 2009 at 3:11 PM ^
>"Well, the cost of a scholarship is the cost of a scholarship - it doesn't matter if it's girls field hockey or football, they should be the same cost."
That is true. However, football or ice hockey has more inherent costs than lets say soccer. More pads, equipment, infrastructure needed and when you travel you are bringing more players with you in football than soccer.
>"I'm not trying to "blame Title IX", as I think it's basically a good idea that the University's utilized a bad way. I think it is sort of absurd for the school to endow 120 football scholarships and, as a result, not field a girl's soccer team - I don't see that as fair."
I don't disagree with you there.
>"My main point is that the rule isn't "hurting student athletes" as your suggested, but more creating opportunities for different student athletes."
I guess I see what you are saying. However, creating a scholarship limit and then further reducing that limit does in fact make less opportunities for football players and perhaps less sport scholarship opportunities overall. As some schools could easily afford to comply with Title IX and dole out more football scholarships like at the old limits.
Football ultimately pays the bills of most school's athletic department and therefore funds the non-profitable sports and their scholarships.
If the NCAA is truly about the student athlete, then why reduce the amount of football scholarships available at the top level if Title IX already clears up the problem of having an unfair amount of female sport opportunities as compared to male opportunities.