Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Cupcakes vs BCS

sliderNcider said:
1 elite team, 2 respectable yet beatable teams, and one cupcake
Click to expand...

Wrong. I understand WANTING to play this kind of schedule, but the system says teams like TTU and KSU could get into the BCS with their schedules(see TTU when they almost won the south a few years ago and almost went undefeated) and KSU was a 4th quarter away from playing for all the marbles in 1998. Making something harder than it needs to be is the definition of stupidity. I totally understand why we think this way, but the system says otherwise historically.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
Conference champs in strong conferences don't need a strong OOC you are right. Thats why tOSU gets away with it, thats why UofF gets away with it, thats why nebraska and oklahoma and texas get away with it. However SOS matters to the computers.

What if we are 5 points away from the number 2 spot in the computers? Everyone will be bitching about how we should have played a tougher schedule, and we have no one to blame but ourselves for being left out.
Click to expand...


Oregon played for the BCS title this past year. Did you see the rest of the Pac-12?? Stanford went 12-1, but the rest of the conference was complete crap. Oregon played New Mexico (they went 1-11 on the year, btw) and PORTLAND STATE in the non-conference schedule. They also played Tennessee (who finished 6-6 last year).

Oregon - 12-0 (pre-bowl record)
Stanford - 11-1 (pre-bowl record, only loss was AT Oregon)
Washington = 6-6 (pre-bowl record)
USC = 8-5 (ineligible for postseason play)
Oregon State = 5-7
Arizona State = 6-6
Arizona = 6-6 (pre-bowl record)
UCLA = 4-8
Washington State = 2-10
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
Oregon played for the BCS title this past year. Did you see the rest of the Pac-12?? Stanford went 12-1, but the rest of the conference was complete crap. Oregon played New Mexico (they went 1-11 on the year, btw) and PORTLAND STATE in the non-conference schedule. They also played Tennessee (who finished 6-6 last year).

Oregon - 12-0 (pre-bowl record)
Stanford - 11-1 (pre-bowl record, only loss was AT Oregon)
Washington = 6-6 (pre-bowl record)
USC = 8-5 (ineligible for postseason play)
Oregon State = 5-7
Arizona State = 6-6
Arizona = 6-6 (pre-bowl record)
UCLA = 4-8
Washington State = 2-10
Click to expand...
im not talking about next year, I know the conference is looking good next year. i am talking in the future if the conference has a down year.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
im not talking about next year, I know the conference is looking good next year. i am talking in the future if the conference has a down year.
Click to expand...


The conference had a down year this last year. With no conference championship game. And STILL sent a team to the national championship!
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
The conference had a down year this last year. With no conference championship game. And STILL sent a team to the national championship!
Click to expand...
introducing 2 teams adds another 18 losses to the equation. Ok the ducks went 12-0 however had two or three more teams gone 12-0 (before cc games) they would have probably been left home, again.
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
Since the BCS national championship game was started in 1998, the Pac-12 has been represented 3 times.

Oregon was snubbed from the 2001 BCS championship game.

Can you think of any other years a legitimate Pac-12 contender was snubbed from the BCS title game?
Click to expand...


sc in 03
 
The formula should be that you put together the easiest schedule that your fans will show up to watch. That's why schools like Nebraska and Alabama can schedule the most delicious of cupcakes and why CU needs to schedule Georgia and Cal non-conference.

When CU gets 90,000 to the spring game and has a waiting list for season tickets, then we can line up the schedule with 4 OOC home games against tomato cans, but CU doesn't have that luxury.
 
Unleash Hell said:
I really don't see how the Pac-12 is that much tougher than the Big 12 was. Some very quality teams in both conferences.
Click to expand...

i really don't think it is tougher, to be honest. i think it's more the new party-line than anything. the stat that gets thrown around is that so and so number of teams have won the conference since some time X....so, maybe more competitive internally than the top heavy XII (that developed a very respectable middle class in Missouri, OSU and Tech (Leach era), Kansas for one year in the middle part of the 00's)....but "better", i don't think so. others do, i guess. i'd say the Pac is underrated by many around the country, but i don't think it's tougher than the Big XII.
 
Creatini said:
Pac 12 doesn't have ISU (hate to say it), KSU, Baylor, or any of the usual terrible teams.
Click to expand...

Washington state was one of the worst teams in the nation last 2-3 years....and generally awful since they lost Price. UW has sucked for a decade, ASU has been barely above .500 with Erickson and Koetter. Oregon State, really? they're good for 6 wins a year, Riley is a good coach....but, they aren't scary. U of A is overrated every year and a bowl patsie if they make it. Stanford is new money as far as being a legit top 15 type team....they usually are middling at best. nothing special about the Dorrell-Neu era at UCLA.

lot of benefit of the doubt being given imo.
 
I know that WSU has been garbage, what have they won? 5 games in 3 years? I never really paid attention to the others though other than Oregon and USC prior to this year.
 
Mick Ronson said:
i really don't think it is tougher, to be honest. i think it's more the new party-line than anything. the stat that gets thrown around is that so and so number of teams have won the conference since some time X....so, maybe more competitive internally than the top heavy XII (that developed a very respectable middle class in Missouri, OSU and Tech (Leach era), Kansas for one year in the middle part of the 00's)....but "better", i don't think so. others do, i guess. i'd say the Pac is underrated by many around the country, but i don't think it's tougher than the Big XII.
Click to expand...

I think they're about equal. Pac-12 is made more difficult with 9 conference games instead of 8. We need to adjust our non-conference schedule accordingly, because it's now like 1 of the 4 spots we had is already taken up with a quality BCS opponent.
 
Buffnik said:
I think they're about equal. Pac-12 is made more difficult with 9 conference games instead of 8. We need to adjust our non-conference schedule accordingly, because it's now like 1 of the 4 spots we had is already taken up with a quality BCS opponent.
Click to expand...

fair point and i agree about adjusting the schedule....but, i do think we need at least one interesting OOC game a season....ideally at home when we travel to USC or the other marquee conference teams on the schedule. i don't think the CSU game is going to carry much ballast as seems to me the "rivalry" is losing some momentum.

i'd also point out that maybe playing a North schedule and only 1 of Texas or OU, 1 of ATM and Tech, and OSU rotating however they fit in....is less tough than a yearly Pac schedule....but, overall, or playing a South schedule the last decade i'd give the XII the nod over the Pac. just an opinion.
 
Unleash Hell said:
They have had up and down teams more than the Big 12 has I think.
Click to expand...

True. WSU has taken the biggest slide out of any conference but ASU, U o A, OSU, and to an extent UCLA have never been great programs, but solid programs from what I can recall.
 
Creatini said:
True. WSU has taken the biggest slide out of any conference but ASU, U o A, OSU, and to an extent UCLA have never been great programs, but solid programs from what I can recall.
Click to expand...

UCLA in the 80s under Donahue would have been before your time. Dude won a bowl game like every year back when there were a lot fewer bowls and had the team in the top 10 all the time.
 
I;m pretty sure BCS would eat all the cupcakes. (really no one went there?)
 
Buffnik said:
UCLA in the 80s under Donahue would have been before your time. Dude won a bowl game like every year back when there were a lot fewer bowls and had the team in the top 10 all the time.
Click to expand...

Yeah UCLA was very good in the 80's but fell off in '89 and hasn't reached that level except for in 2005 when they went 10-2.
 
The 9 game conference schedule is a ball breaker when scheduling OOC.

Every odd year, CU plays only 4 conference games at home. This means both OCC opponents not named CSU must play in Folsom in order to deliver the minimum six home games that season ticket holders crave.

To put that another way, CU can schedule a home-and-home with one opponent, and then CU must schedule bodybag games against teams who are willing to come to Folsom for a one and done.

There are only so many patsies out there who would take what CU can afford. (Montana State)

The other options involve scheduling Hawaii to get the 13th game, or to modify or break the CSU contract so that it's played in Boulder during the odd years.

I'd like for CU to have an A game against a quality BCS opponent that insures an interesting road trip every other year, a B game against a rotation of CSU/AFA/WYO, and a C game against whoever willing to accept a paycheck and no return game. But I'm not holding my breath.

We'll probably end up scheduling the likes of Fresno State and other programs who are willing to schedule 2 for 1s. Teams that are hungry enough to do that will beat CU every once in a while.

I also expect that CU will have it's arm twisted into playing to CSU every year at Invesco for their subsidy game, even after this contact expires. Yuck.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd like to see us play 1 big time game a year. Then we have CSU every year which I'd say is not quite a cupcake. For the last two I'd like to see us play decent teams that have a pulse, but hopefully are easy wins. Toledo and Montana State should be easy wins btw. I think it'd also be nice if we could schedule some games against Texas teams so it's not like we're never in Texas playing games (maybe helps a little with recruiting).
 
White_Rabbit said:
I think it'd also be nice if we could schedule some games against Texas teams so it's not like we're never in Texas playing games (maybe helps a little with recruiting).
Click to expand...

I'm all for some 2-for-1 home/away matches with Rice and North Texas.
 
We could also maybe try and work something out with Jerry world and play ND there or something. Or maybe TCU in a couple of years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top