Friday, June 3, 2011

Boise State (And Every Mid Major)'s Dilemma

 Florida. USC. Texas. Ohio State. LSU. Oklahoma.
    Boise State. Utah. BYU. TCU. Ball State. Hawaii.
  Both of these groups are part of the 120-strong D-1 football subdivision, but are worlds apart in fans, media attention, and revenue. Occasionally, one of the mid-majors (Boise State, TCU, etc.) will go undefeated and be outraged at being left out of the national championship game. Meanwhile, the big schools claim they've played a tougher schedule and that they are better than the mid-major. This always leads to endless arguing about college football's (flawed) championship system. Some suggest Boise State and other mid-majors should schedule bigger schools to get more respect and show that they can compete with the "Big 6" conferences. It sounds like a great idea, at first...
    However, college football schedules are made years in advance, so you never know how good (or bad) a team will be. Of course, you can make an educated guess on powerhouses like USC, but what about teams like Rutgers, Cal, Oklahoma State, Nebraska, and Arizona? Boise State might be scheduling a .500 team in West Virginia, or a 1-loss, Big East leading team. And vice versa. Arizona wouldn't know if TCU would be ranked in the top 5 or not ranked at all. Should TCU be considered a "big game" or a "cupcake"? Say BYU schedules Missouri. Missouri could be a top 10 team or unranked and the same could be true with BYU. USC - OSU probably will always feature two top 10 ranked teams, but what about Nebraska - Utah? Sure, you can guess and look at talent, coaching, etc. but quite frankly: you don't know. Boise State could be unranked in a few years and Nebraska could be #1 (Maybe even BSU at #1 and Nebraska unranked). The point is, to gain respect you have to beat the great teams. To beat the great teams, you have to first pinpoint them many years in advance. And that takes some luck and guts.

No comments:

Post a Comment