NCAA Football '11-'12

[jimmy olsen]

Florida st. would make much more sense in the SEC. This is stupid.

Florida State cannot join the SEC.  The reasons for this should be obvious.

They're whiny babies that can't stand instate competition.

[Valmy]

They're whiny babies that can't stand instate competition.

If you are talking about Florida then...yes I suppose but that is not really the reason they block the other Florida schools.

But seriously they have never shied away from playing Miami and FLorida.  So what the fuck are you talking about?

[stjaba]

They're whiny babies that can't stand instate competition.

If you are talking about Florida then...yes I suppose but that is not really the reason they block the other Florida schools.

But seriously they have never shied away from playing Miami and FLorida.  So what the fuck are you talking about?

I'm not sure which schools in the SEC blocked it(presumably UF and South Carolina), but both Clemson and FSU weren't considered in the last realignment carousel because they were in pre-existing SEC states.

[PDH]

Boise State apparently "forgot" to file the paperwork to leave the Mountain West, and while they would have to pay 5 million to back out of the Big East, they would be allowed back to the Mountain West.  There are supposedly talks going on now about that.

San Diego State is fucked.  Tough titties.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Forget the playoffs and next round of possible realignment.  This is HUGE news for college football:

http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2012-articles/may/breaking-pam-ward-out-of-espns-college-football-coverage.html

I can report ESPN has removed Pam Ward from its college football coverage.

— Richard Deitsch (@richarddeitsch) May 21, 2012

[Valmy]

Wow.

The noon Big 10 games will never be the same.

[grumbler]

Wow.

The noon Big 10 games will never be the same.

... thank Hod.

[MadImmortalMan]

That's wonderful. 

[Ed Anger]

 

[CountDeMoney]

I liked her. 

[Ed Anger]

I liked her. 

[CountDeMoney]

I support lesbians in the workplace.

[grumbler]

An interesting little debate has arison over on MGoBlog about whether it is great or it sucks that Michigan's schedule changes difficulty so greatly depending on whether it is an even or an odd year.  In even years, Michigan plays ND, Nebraska, and Ohio away - when Wisconsin rolls onto the schedule in 2014, it will also be away in even years.  In odd years, obviously, M gets them all at home. 

The question is whether it is better to have, say, 10-2 regular seasons alternate with 8-4 seasons, or whether to have the schedule balanced and go 9-3 every year (with a +/- two game variability, so you get the occasional national championship shot in odd years but probably don't get as many of them in the balanced schedule, because the difference between 1 loss and 2 is everything).

I'm thinking the imbalanced setup serves the school and conference best.  Any thoughts?

[CountDeMoney]

I dunno, g...If it were a lesser known program, a more balanced schedule with a consistent W/L record would help with the recruiting;  but it's not like Michigan would be starving for recruits looking for a consistent program, though.

Although, I still think a more balanced schedule, particularly considering the conference and Michigan's overall SOS, would still put it in a better position for BCS shots every year than an imbalanced schedule format.  Noamsayin'?

[grumbler]

I dunno, g...If it were a lesser known program, a more balanced schedule with a consistent W/L record would help with the recruiting;  but it's not like Michigan would be starving for recruits looking for a consistent program, though.

Although, I still think a more balanced schedule, particularly considering the conference and Michigan's overall SOS, would still put it in a better position for BCS shots every year than an imbalanced schedule format.  Noamsayin'?

Well, that's the question:  do you want BCS bowls every year but few/no MNCs, or do you want championship game appearances more often, but also more non-BCS bowls?

Urban Meyer is one of the hottest caches out there, based on his Florida performance.  That was a 9-3, 13-1, 9-4, 13-1, 13-1, 8-5 run.  Half the time his teams were in the MNC chase, half were nowhere near that.  Florida fans seemed delighted.  Pete Carrol had records from 2005-2008 of 12-1, 11-2, 11-2, 12-1 and won no MNCs in that period (though he had, of course, won one in each of the years leading up to 2005, in which he went 12-1 and 13-0).  He was in the chase the whole time, but the difference between one and two losses is massive.

I don't have strong feelings on the issue, and I think the question is an interesting one.