I am not taking it as a shot, I just don't agree. Conference members most certainly do control who they play by electing to choose conference membership. You can even upgrade (or downgrade) your schedule by electing to join another conference. We've seen this in the SEC (Arkansas and South Carolina) and the Big East teams jumping to the ACC (only to dominate it). Those teams chose to put those teams on their schedule by accepting membership.
In 2007 WVA just about scheduled themselves into the BCS Championship game and certainly into a BCS game. Had they not lost to a medicore/bad Pitt team at home in their last game they would have played in the BCS Championship game. This was their schedule. * 3.1 Western Michigan * 3.2 Marshall * 3.3 Maryland * 3.4 East Carolina * 3.5 South Florida * 3.6 Syracuse * 3.7 Mississippi State * 3.8 Rutgers * 3.9 Louisville * 3.10 Cincinnati * 3.11 Connecticut * 3.12 Pittsburgh I suggest that only Rutgers and Louisville were good teams. Essentially a 2 game season. So Conference teams can play incredibly weak schedules and there is no penalty. Terry
Seems we will never have a system that all agree with? My biggest complaint through the years is the easy path that some teams have had to the BCS games and even the Championship game. Miami and FSU in the Big East and ACC were perfect examples for a bit. Then $$$ kind of changed the game and for the ACC at least the path is no longer simple. However a good Big East team could find themselves in the Championship game when a lot of other teams could be better. I do agree with BT that some kind of control is in order for independents. I hardly think those rules will hurt Notre Dame when they put out the kind of product they have in the past. They will be in one of the games every year if they start winning consistently.
Corey, You have a point, but I think it's safe to say that changing an "independent" schedule is much easier than jumping conferences. Terry, That's one of the huge flaws in this system - they don't consider SOS. Thank goodness football is approaching... I needed something to type about!
I see your points, BT and Scott. As an ND fan I appreciate that you respect our "brand" (Thanks, BT) and that you are talking in generalities. I think basically we all are on the same page. We just have different perspectives. I think that on balance most BCS conference teams play respectable schedules. Teams like 2007 W. Virginia and and 2009 Penn State, maybe not so much. Sorry, Andy.
For ND to make the top eight in the BCS ranking they have to play a representative schedule. In ND's case. they play a coast to coast schedule where most conference teams rarely venture too far from their own region. One year the Irish played BYU in Utah, then were on the east coast, then home and then on the west coast.... in one month. I say take the Top Ten and put them in a BCS Bowl.
I wouldn't mind the "top ten" in system... but it sure would make for some interesting voting in the coach's poll!
No question about that - the Big 10 has added one member in my lifetime. Additionally, "members" are added or not based upon the collective judgement of all conference members, not based upon the sole discretion of any single member acting in their unique self-interests. An additional layer of oversight about which indies don't have to be concerned. The only way somebody can be on an independent schedule is if the school wishes it to be so....if the school doesn't want somebody to be on their schedule, they will not be on the schedule......no conference confab, no lobbying, no debate, no nothing. It does provide an element of discretion that conference members do not have and has the potential to be abused.....ND has not, does not and likely will not, but the possibility still exists, can provide unfair advantage and therefore must be addressed. Re: SOS - so long as the computer polls have some bearing on the rankings and strength of opposition is an element in their power rankings, SOS is an indirect consideration. I believe that one of the issues with SOS was that to have it as a standalone variable in addition to being a factor in the computer rankings it would in effect be double counted and therefore carry more weight than many believed reasonable.
I was thinking that the BCS demanded that the computer polls not take SOS into account in their forumula. I believe that requirement caused some computer polls to decline to participate rather than change their formula. I could be wrong of course.
TOK, I wouldn't be surprised at anything....it's all nonsense as far as I'm concerned. But if they are suggesting that the algorithms be forced to give equal weight to a win over (choose your perennial powerhouse here) and equal weight to a win over (choose your perennial DII creampuff here) then the computers have ZERO utility. wtf?
Terry, I think what you are referring to is margin of victory. I think SOS is still taken into consideration.
I think the whole point of the original article is that we don't get special treatment, which is a common complaint we hear from non-ND fans. BCS Conf teams have their rules, ND has it's rules (tougher to get guaranteed bid), Non-BCS conferences have their rules (again tougher). We've all got our rules. As ND fans we just get tired of people saying we get special treatment. I also find it interesting that BCS conference fans on this thread all seemed to agree with BT's theory that making a guaranteed bid tougher for ND a "Control Mechanism" to protect against the Irish lining up a ton of patsy's. But when I pointed out that no such control mechanism existed for our position in the at-large pool (everybody is equal in the at-large pool) as contradictory to the "Control Mechanism"? Terry
You do get special treatment...you have to get special treatment by definition. What I am trying to say here is not that you get easier treatment...but by definition you have to get different treatment. Unfortunately, or fortunately, you have chosen to continue on an independent path, and therefore short of eliminating the automatic BCS eligiblity for conference champions (could be discussed, but probably not gonna happen), a different system has to be in place for ND. I'm not going to get involved in the "fair or not" argument...I think maybe your path is a bit tougher...but am tempted to feel that it is pretty close.
I think most of us take "special" treatment to mean we get favored treatment...ie better than conference teams. When somebody says that to me it's usually in a derogatory manner and followed by you ought to join a conference. I would agree that the rules have to be different for ND, there has to be some bar set. For conf teams it's win your conference, for ND it's finish #8 or higher. I'm actually ok with that bar. Plus if we finish #9-14 (14 being the lowest a team can rank to be in the at-large pool) we are most likely going to get a BCS bid anyway. Terry
The other rule that comes up is the 3rd team from a conference rule. That rule actually helps the Irish although it wasn't put in to help the Irish it was put in to prevent one conference from dominating the Money (I'd say BCS bids but it's really about money in this case).
I guess that's what prompted me to reply initially to BT and Scott in a defensive mode....until I realized that they simply were analyzing the issue in objective manner with no disrespect to ND. It's amazing when I open my eyes and realize that some folks - like Stu, BT, and Scott - actually are neutral regarding ND. Because of my years-long exposure to the attitude expressed above by Terry, I tend to start out assuming that you are either fer us or agin us. Looks like there is a third category out there with a whole lot of members. :lol:
I'm glad you didn't count me in that group Sid because I think the Univ of ND is the DEVIL!! The only thing that can possibly save your institution now is Cardinal Meyer... :wink: :twisted: