College football commentary

[stevenehrbar]

For your consideration:
A team in the FBS (Division 1-A) that plays FCS teams (Division 1-AA) for three of its four non-conference games by definition does not have a tough schedule, and should be roundly mocked.  Especially if their best opponent that year is also a team that ran up its record by playing FCS teams for three of its four non-conference games.

Comments

[katster.livejournal.com]

Huh, I didn't think such a thing was possible. Because as far as I knew, no matter how many of them you play, a I-A team is only allowed to count one I-AA team towards bowl eligibility. And the rules say you need six wins, so any team that schedules more than one had better be fairly assured it'll do well in conference. (I know there's a few schools that schedule two, but I don't think I've heard of three yet.)

Are you sure you're not confusing the FBS/FCS (I-A/I-AA) with BCS and non-BCS conferences?

(Also, I'm curious as to what teams you're thinking of. Most of the schedules of the top contenders I've looked at have several 1-A bottom feeders (non-BCS), but generally only one I-AA team.

[stevenehrbar.livejournal.com]

Agh, my mistake. I thought the Sun Belt Conference was FCS, not FBS

Florida plays Charleston Southern (FCS/I-AA), Troy (SBC), and Florida International (SBC), while Alabama plays Chattanoogs (FCS/I-AA), North Texas (SBC), and Florida International (SBC).

[katster.livejournal.com]

But that mighty SEC schedule makes up for any feasting of cupcakes that may occur in the non-conference schedule!

Meanwhile, my beloved Pac-10 plays a full-conference round robin, thus assuring us of playing a mighty game of bumper cars every year for the league title. I'm not saying we play tougher out west, but I wish more teams in the SEC would go the Tennessee route. The games Cal played with them were fun.

-kat

[stevenehrbar.livejournal.com]

Yeah. "The SEC is the toughest conference because SEC teams have to play teams that are in the SEC, which is the toughest conference."

Then you look over at, say:

USC, which has no AA teams on its schedule, and only one team that counts as a non-conference "cupcake" (San Jose State).

Ohio State, with what initially looks like the same sort of one-tough three-easy non-conference schedule that Alabama or Florida plays . . . except instead of an AA team, they play Navy. Navy's not a consistent top-tier team, but they're not a Charleston Southern.

Cal, which does have an AA team on the schedule . . . but has the rest of its games against BCS conference teams.

And you wonder if the SEC's "power" comes from the fact that its best teams play a comfortable nine-game regular season.

[katster.livejournal.com]

[delete and redo, threading fail]

Well, I know Cal's schedule isn't always the best as next year is UC Davis (FCS), @Nevada (WAC), and Colorado. I'm willing to forgive the UCD one-off because they've recently moved up to FCS status, thus making it possible for Cal to play them, and there's some significant historical interest there -- they used to play their game just before ours for a football sunday doubleheader -- but I know, despite the historical interest, there's not much reason for Cal to play that game other than tuneup.

That said, I know Cal tries to play an A-B-C schedule (one BCS team that's generally pretty good, one team that's decent -- either a BCS mid-tier team or a non-BCS team that's pretty good -- and one creampuff). It doesn't always work out; I think Colorado was intended to be our A school next year, and well, yeah, we played Colorado State a few years back, and I think CSU gave us better games than Colorado will. [Of course, now that I've said this, watch Colorado pull the upset.]

I think there's only a handful of schools that haven't played FCS schools ever, and three of them are in the Pac-10 -- USC, UCLA, and Washington (although UW is going to blow it, Eastern Washington is on their schedule next year.)

The non-BCS is a little more interesting, given that out west we have the Mountain West, which really ought to be a seventh BCS conference -- put Boise in that conference along with TCU, BYU, Utah, and Air Force? That'd be scary. The WAC is a bit more creampuff, although Boise State is scarygood, Nevada and Fresno State have had some good years, and Hawaii will make an occasional run at it.

Back east, there's the MAC, the Sun Belt, and C-USA, which, despite their being an occasional good team in those leagues, just don't seem to put together the programs the Mountain West has. Or, if they do, one of the big boys cannibalizes them -- I'm looking at you, Big East, with your poaching of Cincy, how'd that work out anyway? I think it says something that in the years since one non-BCS school got an automatic qualifier into the BCS bowls, it's always been either an MWC or WAC school.

Sorry, I could spend all day talking about college football. :)

-kat

[leticia.livejournal.com]

Hey, you might want to log in to check your gmail if you can.