Most teams fill up most of their schedule several years in advance. But there are still plenty of openings for BCS schools if anyone wanted to take on Boise. But most of those teams fill their last-minute openings with scrub schools.
So I picked a bad example still most of them schedule the worst of the FCS. College football on the FBS level is still a complete joke regardless.
Take, for example, the fact that FOUR SEC teams today are playing games against 1-AA teams. The SEC alone has 11 games scheduled against these teams this year, and they do that crap every year. Those types of games are last minute schedulings for the most part - there's no need to schedule that 2+ years in advance. Or if they are, they can easily be dropped, but no SEC would be willing to play Boise.
I still propose that this is how it should be done: 1. Play the 8 conference games you have, no problem. 2. With 4 non-conference games left in the season, teams that finished ranked in 2008 have to have at least 2 ranked non-conference teams in their 2009 schedule. Yeah, scheduling will be a scramble, but it should be able to work out. They have plenty of time to make it happen.
Tell Boise/Utah/whatever piddly-ass program-of-the-month to not cancel games against traditional schools, and you might have a point. This is reminiscent of the "UT won't play us!" silliness that abounds down in the Cullen/Scott area.
That reminds me. Props to Tech for taking us up on a fair home and home, unlike some schools in Texas I know of.
Did Boise cancel a game with someone? Texas *did* cancel a game with Hawaii - at the last minute, supposedly for financial reasons despite paying them a huge fee to cancel and knowing exactly how much it cost since they had just played there a few years earlier. Coincidentally, Hawaii had suddenly gotten good the previous year. Utah, on the other hand, cancelled a few years in advance due to scheduling issues when TCU joined their conference.
It's stuff like this that makes me never ever care about who wins the championship or get into the BCS each year. I'd watch games if I want to see particular teams, players, and/or matchups. But the whole ranking shenanigan behind the BCS is just stupid. And the worst part is, as long as they're raking in the money, it will never change. Which of course means, it will never change.
Been there, done that. There are many well-documented reasons why those schools will not play each other in any meaningful sporting event anytime in the near future; and contrary to your worldview, the fault does not lie entirely with the folks in Austin.
Nope, was specifically referring to the game(s?) Utah backed out of. I would looooove UT to schedule better ooc teams, hopefully the USC deal works out.
Blah blah BLAH blah blah. Alls I'm sayin' is that there are a bunch of very legitimate reasons why UT schedules Rice in lieu of UH every freakin' year, in every freakin' sport. Hope the jhericurled genius gets things together, but i'd bet on NCAA investigations before NCAA tournaments; it sure would be sweet if UH had a decent hoops program again. Frenchy's *is* quality fast-food, thanks for the offer, but I don't eat fried chick unless I cook it myself.
next 8 or so years, UT plays home-and-home against Cal, UCLA, and Mississippi, so that's a step up. and agreed on the USC deal. when you're a top program like texas or florida, there is very little incentive to schedule another top tier program, when you're pretty much guaranteed to the title game by winning out. the point every year is to win the title, and it's expected for teams to pick the path of the least resistance to reach that goal. oh, and this is coming from someone in favor of a 8-12 team playoff system.
Everyone is clamoring for a playoff, which is logical. However I have to interject: there's certainly a reason why a playoff system in college football doesn't exist. How come it never was developed 50 years ago? Why did it take so long JUST to get the BCS going? EVENTUALLY some type of playoff system will be put in place, whether it's +1, 8 8 teams, or 16 teams. In the short term, as I've mentioned previously, I believe schools who have a history of playing cupcakes (ex: Florida) should be put in a fair playing field. Initiate inter-conference games (like the ACC/BIG 10 Challenge in Basketball). Do that for football and then no one complains that a team that schedules pathetic out of conference games (ex: Florida) didn't play a tough opponent.
Why does Boise State need to schedule a BCS school? Put TCU and Utah on your schedule. CUSA and the MAC need to schedule each other heavily. I would love to see UT play some better schools, but I don't expect UT to travel much in non-conference. I would love for the Big 12 to make a counter proposal, play four Big 12 schools in 2013. Boise State has to game plan for one school all year most seasons. This way, Boise State gets a mini taste of a real conference and make their coaches work.
I'm sure that Boise State would play 4 Big 12 schools; just cut them a portion of the $17M check that the conference gets from the BCS, rather than the ~$9M that is split amongst ALL of the non-BCS teams. Share the revenue that one gets from playing on a conference network, merchandising, and everything else that the flawed college football system gives us. I know for a fact that when Hawai'i got blown out by Georgia in the Sugar Bowl, they spent less on football total than what Georgia spends on Mark Richt. Hawai'i's recruiting budget was $50,000 total, that had to include flying recruits and coaches across the pacific ocean. Big money teams like UT or USC give their top recruits $50,000 as signing bonuses. You could have Vince Lombardi on your sideline, As for outside contenders playing each other; tell ESPN/ABC/CBS to pay for a game between two non-big six teams, put it on during primetime, and tell the pollsters to actually care about the game. Utah played both the #11 team and #14 team last year, one of them on CBS, late in the year, and still yet a great number of pollsters admitted to not watching the team all year! If the only way to even get the powers that be to WATCH you play is to play BCS teams, then you can't really fault teams like Boise State for getting frustrated with the process. I don't blame coaches or ADs or schools for not scheduling anyone; it's a broken system that discourages competition, marginalizes 50% of the teams, and destroys the postseason for the sake of 1 game. There's absolutely no reason for a big money team to play games OOC where there's even a remote possibility of them losing. I think there's little doubt that Boise, if put in a major conference with the budget and facilities it has now, would not do very well on a week to week basis. But as Cincinnati and Urban Meyer have proven, if you give a program or a coach of a non-big six team access to the same resources as the BCS teams, they will do just as well, if not better than those traditional powerhouses.
