FSU.Osceola's Comments

Posted Thursday September 27, 2012, About: Flordia State: Embarassment to the human race
As a Seminole fan you should know better than to criticize FSU for the SSU game. WV pulled out earlier this year, and most teams already had a full schedule. We got an available team.

Two games in a season should be avoided, but we couldn't this year due to circumstances out of our control. But many of those small schools need the big payday they get by being a tune up game for the big boys. SSU pulled in $660k in two weeks, vs. FSU and Okie St. As many universities have had their budgets cut, these games might help keep the smaller Athletic Departments afloat. IIRC, Jim Tressel often purposefully played smaller schools near OSU to help them out.
Posted Thursday May 03, 2012, About: 2012 FBS Non Conference Schedules
I agree. Our OOC would have been: 1AA, WV, @USF, UF. That is three AQ teams. But due to moving to the Big 12 WV pulled out of the game and we had to scramble to fill the slot. Ultimately all we could get was another 1AA. It was not our first choice.
Posted Wednesday February 29, 2012, About: A Link to a Truth & Rumors Thread
I think most people would disagree that it is not about finding the best team. The expectation is that the most deserving (i.e., "best") team would emerge from a PO - though I do agree with your later comment that single elimination is not the best way to determine the "best." Unfortunately football is not capable of holding series (best 2/3, 3/5, etc.) so that is all we have.

An interesting idea might be that when conferences move to 16+ teams they could experiment with having moveable divisions. Each year the divisions shift, teams play a round robin in that division, division champs play in the CCG. Without interdivisional games each team is on the same scale as the other teams it is competing against. By shifting the divisions each year teams in the same conf would still play each other semi-regularly. Of course some teams could be placed in pods and always move together to keep some permanent rivals (for an ACC Atlantic example, FSU, Clemson, NCSt and WF could be a pod; another might be Mary, BC, Syr, and Rutgers if they joined one day).

I doubt this happens but it could even out the competitive playing field per conf so that each team in a division plays basically the same conf SOS. No years where FSU draws Duke and UVA from the Coastal while Clemson draws VT and UNC. Just straight up old school round robin. The rotating divisions prevent this from becoming just two separate confs that play each other in the opening round of the POs. But this would allow 18-20 team confs, as the conf schedule would still be between 8-9 games.

Not that that would happen.
Posted Wednesday February 29, 2012, About: A Link to a Truth & Rumors Thread
Of course they do not hold for every team every year. But people use such "proportional win shares/percentages" to predict likely outcomes and they are surprisingly accurate over a period of time and a large sample size. They definitely tend to be more accurate for predicting final record than strictly predicting the winner of each game, though it does require some knowledge of the opponent as well.

And sure USC had a great run, just like FSU did from 1987-2000. Most teams are not that dominant for that long however. Plus those were sample numbers. A mid-2000s USC team would almost always have had a greater than 0.5 even in the big games.
Posted Wednesday February 29, 2012, About: A Link to a Truth & Rumors Thread
Polls tend to punish losses and not really reward wins as much. USC and OU started 2004 as #1 and #2. Auburn started as #17. Their being left out had little to do with anyone's schedule and a lot to do with where the teams began the season.

Additionally if OOC was part of the reason AU got left out it was a very bad reasoning. VT was unranked when USC played them, as was Oregon when OU played them. VT did finish 10-3 but Oregon was 5-6 that year. Meanwhile Auburn beat THREE top 10 teams that year in the regular season: #5 LSU, #10 Tenn, #8 Georgia and #15 UT again in the CG. OU beat ONE top 10 team and only two other ranked teams (#20 OkSt, #22 A&M). USC beat ONE top 10 team (#7 Cal) and only one other ranked team (#15 ASU).
Posted Wednesday February 29, 2012, About: A Link to a Truth & Rumors Thread
Most teams play one tough OOC opponent now. It is just that many are locked in so people forget about them. FSU and UF play every year and in most years that is a very tough OOC for each team. But LSU does not have an annual opponent like that and so will schedule Oregon, WV, etc. Though usually not both in the same year. They were fortunate to win out this year.

Since there is such a slight difference between #s 4 and 5 it does not really make sense for either to schedule an extra tough OOC game. Use the win percentage prediction method for schedule options A, B and C (for hypothetical top 10 teams with Annual, equal level rivals):

Team A's OOC
1.0 Cupcake 1
1.0 Cupcake 2
0.9 Lower BCS
.50 Annual (tough) OOC
Expected OOC wins: 3.40 (either 3-1 or 4-0)

Team B's OOC
1.0 Cupcake
0.9 Lower BCS
0.5 Tough BCS
0.5 Annual (tough) OOC
Expected OOC wins: 2.90 (3-1)

Team C's OOC
0.95 Lower BCS
0.6 Mid+ BCS
0.5 Tough OOC
0.5 Annual (tough) OOC
Expected OOC wins: 2.55 (either 3-1 or 2-2)

Team A will be 4-0 about 50% of the time and would probably then get the nod over the 3-1 team B. The team C would be eliminated 50% of the time with a 2-2 OOC record, and even when 3-1 may not beat out the 3-1 B (and would not beat A when A is 4-0). Etc.

Every tough game would likely have an expected win percentage of about 50%. Scheduling two such teams makes it likely you will lose one game. Scheduling 3+ would be asking to be eliminated (you have to consider the likelihood of losing at least one conf game) from a PO, and the unlikely probability of winning out over such a brutal OOC schedule - though doing so would guarantee you a SHOT at the NC (but not guarantee an NC; still have to beat two more tough teams) - makes it way too risky. Is the chance to get a "sure shot" at the PO worth the likelihood of being eliminated from PO consideration 9/10 years?

How would one weigh a loss to make scheduling tougher OOC opponents worth the risk of a loss? With only 12 regular season games a single loss is very detrimental to a shot at the PO. In the last ten years if the top four CCs had made a 4-team PO, only eleven 2-loss teams would have made it. That is 11 out of 40 slots (and three of those eleven were in 2007). That is not very comforting if I am sitting down to make a schedule for my team. Give me schedule A where 50% of the time I will be 4-0 OOC and 3-1 the other years. I still have a great shot at making the PO every year even if my schedule is looked down at a little.
Posted Wednesday February 29, 2012, About: A Link to a Truth & Rumors Thread
Winning a conference can be overrated. The best team in the conference is not always crowned as the CC. This is often true but keep in mind that significantly lower ranked teams have won the SEC CG at least twice (10%; would be more but often the lower ranked team is still top 10); the Big XII CG four times (27%); the ACC CG twice (28%).

As with Bama this year a single loss to the wrong team at the wrong time can block you from the CCG - and would have done so even if LSU had lost to Oregon, UF and WV. A 1-loss Bama team would have been clearly better than a 3-loss LSU team despite not winning its conference or even division - and even despite losing the H2H matchup (as proven in the rematch that occurred in the NCG). Luckily it did not go that way this year but similar situations have happened multiple times in virtually every conference.

As I said earlier some teams receive a harder conf schedule as well. It is hard to argue for OOC SOS components without taking into consideration that not all conf schedules are created equal and not trying to equalize those as well. Why use different sized measuring sticks for teams and pretend they are all equal? Or why run a "100-meter" race if one team has to run 90, another 110, etc.?

I would stress that I am not completely against the proposed system. I am just pointing out the weaknesses that WILL be exposed sometime within the first couple years and people will do what they do now - complain about the weaknesses and want to fix them.
Posted Tuesday February 28, 2012, About: A Link to a Truth & Rumors Thread
OOC games are 25% of the regular season (for confs with 9 games; for those with 8 they are 33%). To diminish the OOC portion of the schedule significantly diminishes the importance of the regular season. And that is what so many people say they want to maintain.
Posted Tuesday February 28, 2012, About: A Link to a Truth & Rumors Thread
I did not say anything about at-large teams fixing the weaker OOC. I just denied that a CC PO would fix it. Because Oregon WOULD be penalized for scheduling LSU most of the time. By losing they would drop in the rankings and if only the four highest ranked CCs would make the PO they would often get left out with two losses. Maybe this year they would have been one of the top four CCs but that is not guaranteed. If however they do not schedule LSU and lose only one game they are a virtual lock for the PO.

From 2002-11, CCs #s 4 and 5 (with 5 getting left out) had the same number of losses SEVEN times - 70%. If team #4 lost an extra game (i.e., tough OOC), they would have been out. Had #5 lost one less (i.e., played a weaker OOC team) they would have been in.

The only way a tough OOC will not be penalized is if ALL the CCs make a PO. But if only the top four make it any loss is highly detrimental to one's chances of making the PO. And if all the CCs make a PO then the regular season loses much of its value because you CAN lose multiple OOC games and still make the PO.

Even with a SOS added in, limiting a PO to CCs will probably weaken the regular season as it will allow teams with more losses the chance to play for the title. You even state that there would be a "diminished fear of repercussions" for tougher OOC scheduling. This implicitly states that Oregon could lose to LSU and still make the PO and win the NC. Why? Because they could still win their CC. The regular season losses would not matter.
Posted Tuesday February 28, 2012, About: A Link to a Truth & Rumors Thread
Well back then he was commissioner of the SEC. Now he is not. ;) I kid. That was before the SEC's current reputation and dominance.
Posted Tuesday February 28, 2012, About: A Link to a Truth & Rumors Thread
[b]QUOTE (BuffHole, #44 on the T&R): "Maybe there is a College Football God after all. I was ecstatic to read that there is a push for conference champs only."[/b]

Actually a playoff involving CCs only could significantly diminish the importance of the regular season. OOC games become superfluous as you can lose any or all of them and still make the PO.

This is somewhat countered by the fact that a PO might be limited to the four highest ranked CCs but that means there is no incentive to schedule tough OOC opponents. Most people seem to want that though. I think SOS would be too difficult with such a limited number of games and therefore should not play a huge part in determining which teams get in. Besides even if a 2-loss team played a much tougher schedule than a 1-loss team, all the tougher SOS tells us is that the 2-loss team lost to apparently better teams so why put them in the PO (similar argument to "if you cannot win you own conference"). It also does not tell us if they are better than the 1-loss team.

Overall I like the idea of the top four CCs playing for the NC. The bulk of the season is conf play and is thus important, CCGs function as semi-first round of POs (though without the guarantee of advancement), and OOC games affect ranking and who gets in. But this system is not perfect and does nothing to encourage better OOC scheduling.

Plus conf races are innately unfair in this non round robin age. Divisional opponents play each other but teams can get screwed in the cross-divisional games. Last year for instance FSU played Duke and Virginia from the Coastal while Clemson played VT and UNC. Clemson won the division anyway but in most years that imbalance would highly favor FSU ending up with the better conf record. Should division records play a larger part in determining who makes CCGs? Total conf record becomes part of a tiebreaker for three-way ties?

Well that is enough for now. I have created another essay. I was trying to write shorter posts LOL.
Posted Sunday February 26, 2012, About: Best 4 teams in college football history
The defense is still the only thing they really have going for them. ;)
Posted Friday February 24, 2012, About: Best 4 teams in college football history
Uh uh uh (waving finger). I can think of at least one championship game they did not win (cough1993cough).
Posted Thursday February 23, 2012, About: Best 4 teams in college football history
In the scheme of things FOOTBALL meant nothing until almost the end of the last millennium. It was around for, what, 15% of the millennium? ;)

I have no major problem with leaving FSU or UF off a best program in CFB history list right now because UF has not been very accomplished until lately-ish and FSU did not even start until 1947. Hard to make up for 50+ years of history.

Given the lists of NCs above I also have no problem including ND on the list. After all it may have been 20+ years since they won a title but Bama went from 1992-2009 without one. And ND has not been completely underachieving since 1988. Even made a couple BCS games this decade. Just no crystal trophy.

But since CFB changes so much, some schools have a much longer history than others, and there were fewer teams in the early years, instead of only looking at best overall programs it might be fun also to rank the Top 10 Best 10 year span (or 5, 20, 25, etc). That gives both the old fogies and the youngins like FSU a fair shot to be represented.
Posted Monday February 06, 2012, About: The meaning of Signing Day
Are you a GT guy, Tin Man? If so let me say that I wish FSU and GT were in the asme division. GT is the closest ACC foe to us geographically (natural rival) and routinely gave us the best games in the 90s. The 4th quarter of the 1992 game in particular was Charlie Ward's arrival party, the birth of the Fast Break offense. Even the recent games have been exciting, though the 2009 one was a putrid showing of "defense" by FSU. Not. one. punt. by. GT. Inconthievable!
Posted Monday February 06, 2012, About: The meaning of Signing Day
That is not terribly surprising. Utah recruits at a higher level than GT. Over the last 4 years GT's classes were ranked #s 40, 42, 48, 48 and Utah's were #s 36, 31, 43, unranked (not in Top 50).

Plus there is the "Georgia Tech Effect" - GT's option is a lot easier to defend when teams have 2+ weeks to prepare for it. In fact GT has lost seven straight bowls, extending before Paul Johnson's arrival. He has never won a bowl game at GT. And GT has lost those bowls to: Utah, Air Force, Iowa, LSU, Fresno St., WV, and Utah. Seriously? AF? Fresno? And to think Utah beat GT by three. Probably should've been more, haha. ;-)
Posted Monday February 06, 2012, About: The meaning of Signing Day
Why is that so funny? The very Biiiiiig East stretches all the way to Idaho. Didn't'cha know? ;-)
Posted Monday February 06, 2012, About: The meaning of Signing Day
The record you mention is indeed intriguing. Even though many of the wins are against the likes of Oregon St, Iowa State, Baylor, Cal and Virginia, there have been a handful of impressive wins as well. Plus, one might expect the mediocre AQ schools to win SOME of the games against these guys but Baylor with a Heisman QB is the only one to have done so.

One theory is that for BSU, TCU and pre-2011 Utah these relatively few games were the only real "big" games these teams played each year. Out of the 11 seasons represented (4 for BSU and TCU, 3 for Utah), only three times did these schools play 3 AQs in the same year. These are their "super bowl" type games and they get up for them to prove themselves. For the AQ schools, the conference opponent they play the next week is a MUCH more important game. Lose to BSU, win your conference and you still go to a BCS bowl (heck, VT can do that while losing to JAMES MADISON!); but beat BSU and lose your conference and you might be relegated to the Emerald Bowl.

The disparity still should not be quite so large, you would think. I will be very interested in what Utah does over the next 1-2 years - before the presumed recruiting boost from becoming AQ really kicks in (or perhaps their recruiting will sink a bit due to worse W/L records?).

But this will all be taken care of soon, right? Utah is in the Pac, TCU is joining the B12, and BSU is on its way to the Big East. We should all get to see how these teams hold up over an AQ-level season. That should go a long way in showing whether or not they really should have been given a spot in a NCG at some point.
Posted Monday February 06, 2012, About: The meaning of Signing Day
Oh, okay. Since you say you agree with the general premise, let me say that the NCG participants thing was one of my pieces of evidence and not intended to be the only piece. There IS a bit of the bouncer thing you mention, but I still contend that if the BSUs of the world played an AQ schedule they would not be in the running for the title game, based on their records. And 2010 Utah is still a great example - they were 10-3 with losses to TCU, ND and BSU. They still beat up their normal opponents (even nicked Pitt early).

I do think the NCG participants is relevant though as, except for the non-AQ schools (whose records are inflated by their conference affiliation), the teams that are in the running for the game at the end of the year also tend to be in the same group - teams that have had multiple great recruiting classes.

And there are always going to be statistical outliers as well. OkSt has had two great seasons back-to-back (without the stud recruiting classes) but they have not maintained that success over a long enough period to be anything more than an exception at this point.
Posted Monday February 06, 2012, About: The meaning of Signing Day
You must not have read everything I have linked and written.

But I will add that TCU, Utah and BSU have all done very well with ludicrously easy schedules. This past year BSU's schedule was ranked by various methods as #76, 83, 91. Their numbers have been similar in the past. TCU's 2011 schedule was ranked #51, 86, 84. Utah took a step back in Ws in its first year in the Pac and although its 8-5 season looks respectable they were a few plays away from 6-6. Meanwhile Utah and TCU in particular have been recruiting at levels similar to mid-tier AQ schools for a while now. Equal to or better than places like GT, Kentucky, Louisville, BC, Arizona - even before moving to AQ conferences. Is it any surprise they perform well in non-AQ conferences versus lesser competition? They literally have more talent than EVERY OTHER team in their conferences! They ARE the Alabama, LSU, Oklahoma of the MWC and WAC! Would you expect them to go 11-1 or 8-5?

The few one-game scenarios in which these teams have beaten AQ teams are marginally indicative at best. Anything can happen in a one-game scenario: AppSt can beat Michigan, ISU can beat OkSt, Ole Miss can go on the road and beat Tebow, James Madison can nip VT. BSU, TCU, and the old Utah would not even be in the NC talk if they played an AQ schedule. Oh, wait, Utah did this year and dropped to a decent - and certainly not great - 8-5.

But if you want to ignore the stats provided in the post you quoted that is your choice. But invariably teams that play for the NC - or are considered legitimate NC contenders - recruit at a high level over a period of time. Finding the occasional exception does not disprove the overwhelming rule.
Posted Sunday February 05, 2012, About: The meaning of Signing Day
Whoops. I meant to include the link for that last post. Here.

[url]http://tinyurl.com/6rlxgjr[/url]

It is from The Business of College Sports website. Similarly the same site breaks down the most profitable football programs and the SEC has #s 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 17, 19, 23. The ACC's top program is at #26. Surprisingly at #29 Duke basketball is ranked higher than any other football program in the ACC.

These numbers may not be completely accurate as different schools report finances in different ways but overall they should be pretty reliable for a good overview.
Last Page

Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    D'Antoni's newest 'blunder'
    Views
    1718
    Comments
    865
  2. 2
    Baseball's top 2015 free agent
    Views
    1647
    Comments
    527
  3. 3
    The NHL's model franchise?
    Views
    1733
    Comments
    136
  4. 4
    Cup drought weighing on Sid
    Views
    1617
    Comments
    106
  5. 5
    Smith won't play for San Fran in 2014
    Views
    3318
    Comments
    63

SI.com

SI Photos