Baylor and TCU didn't have a conference championship game to play in, which is the key difference.
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!
Future of football series vs CSU
- Thread starter cmgoods
- Start date
I am on board with this.
And this.
I will say we have been so bad that scheduling a top 25 team these past few years was scheduling a 20+ point loss. That isn't entertainment, either. I was okay with giving coach some room to improve the team. If by 2019, we cannot schedule a solid P5 team without it being a guaranteed bad loss, we have bigger issues than just one OOC game.
Alabama, Michigan, tOSU, et. al. get to NCs by playing creampuffs.
****ty programs like Nebraska try and emulate them.
That's not the Colorado way.
OOC slates, with ranking the week we played them:
1971: LSU (9), Wyoming, tOSU (6)
1989: Texas, CSU, Illinois (10), Washington (21)
1990: Tennesse (8), Stanford, Illinois (21), Texas (22), Washington (12)
1994: NE Louisiana, Wisconsin (10), Michigan (4), Texas (16)
1995: Wisconsin (21), CSU, NE Louisiana, aTm (3)
1996: WSU, CSU, Michigan (11)
2001: Fresno, CSU (24), SJSU
Why did I pick those seven years?
Because those are the seven seasons we were ranked in the top 10 in the final poll.
The only one with a weak OOC is 2001, but of course that year our in conference included #12 KSU, #25 aTm, #9 Texas, #2 NU, and then #3 Texas in the CCG.
My point is that the only times in our school's history that we have finished in the top 10, we played a murderer's row schedule.
That's who we are, and that's what we do. When we get to the top, there's no argument that we belong there (unless your name is Tom Osborne, in which case, **** you).
Other schools may take short cuts, but **** them. That's not the way we do it. We don't get the benefit of the doubt, so we make it ****ing obvious that we belong.
**** these loser, cream puff schedules we've been playing the last decade.
****ty programs like Nebraska try and emulate them.
That's not the Colorado way.
OOC slates, with ranking the week we played them:
1971: LSU (9), Wyoming, tOSU (6)
1989: Texas, CSU, Illinois (10), Washington (21)
1990: Tennesse (8), Stanford, Illinois (21), Texas (22), Washington (12)
1994: NE Louisiana, Wisconsin (10), Michigan (4), Texas (16)
1995: Wisconsin (21), CSU, NE Louisiana, aTm (3)
1996: WSU, CSU, Michigan (11)
2001: Fresno, CSU (24), SJSU
Why did I pick those seven years?
Because those are the seven seasons we were ranked in the top 10 in the final poll.
The only one with a weak OOC is 2001, but of course that year our in conference included #12 KSU, #25 aTm, #9 Texas, #2 NU, and then #3 Texas in the CCG.
My point is that the only times in our school's history that we have finished in the top 10, we played a murderer's row schedule.
That's who we are, and that's what we do. When we get to the top, there's no argument that we belong there (unless your name is Tom Osborne, in which case, **** you).
Other schools may take short cuts, but **** them. That's not the way we do it. We don't get the benefit of the doubt, so we make it ****ing obvious that we belong.
**** these loser, cream puff schedules we've been playing the last decade.
This, I am in complete agreement on. I am all for scheduling a marquee OOC home and home series with a few teams to get CU's name back out there again I'm not overly fond of the body bag games like OSU a few years ago, though, and it really irritates me that the Michigan game in 2016 in a one off in Ann Arbor.
No one should be happy with the one-off games against Ohio State and Michigan. As small time as it gets.
I noticed you didn't put the schedules for 80-87 when we were trying to dig ourselves out of a **** sandwich.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Time to get back to big boy football...we used to play anyone and should strive to compete at that level again. Looking forward to P5 foes in the non-conference but only for 1 for 1 deals. If we do have to fill schedules at times with non P5 teams, it becomes 2 for 1 to fill future holes. The non P5 games should be the exception.
Why should we schedule like dinosaurs "because we used to"?
The 12 game P5 schedule is coming. The playoffs will force the conferences to adapt their scheduling tactics in order to boost their SOS. The days of scheduling D2 schools to boost your W-L record are soon to be over. I believe that is good for NCAAFB. These scheduling changes don't take places for another 5 years. People need to unbunch their panties. If that schedule is still scary in 5 years, than CU is still in the ****ter.
A mandate dictating a uniform number of conference games across the P5 conferences is needed first and foremost. Period. Then, and only then, will multiple, OOC P5 opponents being scheduled become the norm.
And I believe that is coming.
With the autonomy not allotted to the P5 schools, I see them moving farther and farther away from the rest of the NCAA.
Alabama's non conference schedule in 2016: USC, Kent State, Western Ky, and TBD.
Things are not changing as quickly as folks think they are.
Things are not changing as quickly as folks think they are.
I don't think anyone is arguing that your patsy scheduling isn't the safer route. They're saying we don't want to act like a bunch of pussies. If we want to be the best you play the best and prove it. We're far from that reality but when we become legitimate its a hell of a lot more fun to go balls out
Last edited:
Deleted member 807
Guest
We are also saying that CU's adventure into pussy non-con scheduling has been an epic disaster over the last five years. It further added to CU's irrelevence. It cost CU money, and it failed to deliver the results that led to a bowl game. It was a mistake that need not be extended.
It's not about the schedule being scary, at all. I really, really do not give a damn how we scheduled in the Big 6/7/8 days 20+ years ago. If P5 teams across the country start playing 12 game P5 schedules, then obviously CU will follow suit and they should. But at this point, when very few if any teams are scheduling like that where they are playing >10 P5 teams, then why the hell would we? Going forward, we have 9 conference games + one P5 OOC game every year, that is more than enough. We aren't in teh American, we aren't going to be struggling for good teams to play with USC, UCLA, ASU, UA, UO, UW, Furd, etc.
We're in the Pac 12, we already play the best in-conference. If the rest of the nation isn't doing it, **** it we might as well! :rolling_eyes:
Yep, I highly doubt the SEC is gung ho on making any scheduling changes in the near future. Not only do they play one less conference game than the other P5 programs (and don't get penalized for it), but they schedule one of their "FCS-level opponents" late in the season, to further avoid the risk of losing at the point in the season where it would cripple playoff chances. Any drastic changes would have to be slated for post-2020 when most programs don't have non-con series already set up.
dply
Doble hoja
People seem to think scheduling "tougher" opponents is all about wins and losses. More people will watch which helps recruiting. More players will want to play against the schools that spurned them giving our players a chip on their shoulders. The transient nature of Colorado will have the opposing teams fans come by Folsom to see their teams play which pads our pockets and also gives us the chance to win some of those fans over to our side when their teams are not playing us.
It's a ****ing chess match. Real life doesn't come with cheat codes. Mike Mac can't play NCAA 2015 on Freshman, build his team and then go after the big boys.
It's a ****ing chess match. Real life doesn't come with cheat codes. Mike Mac can't play NCAA 2015 on Freshman, build his team and then go after the big boys.
Ok, so going off this logic, had we scheduled LSU in place of Montana St. or Alabama in place of Sac St. and lost by 35 and 50, respectively, CU's program would be less irrelevant or done anything differently on delivering a bowl game? Makes sense.
dply
Doble hoja
I think getting beat by LSU would have been better than losing to Montana state. No matter what the score. Other teams fans don't bring up the 2005 Conference championship game when they make fun of CU but they do bring up Montana State.
dply
Doble hoja
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you're saying that we shouldn't schedule tougher opponents because others schools are not. I think we should be scheduling tougher opponents because other schools are not.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
One thing with 2001-That team was supposed to play at Wazzu the Saturday after the 9/11 attacks. As we know, that game wasn't made up for a couple years (I know we went up there in '04....IIRC, but I don't remember if that was to fulfill that contract). That Wazzu team finished the year ranked #10. I like this. Make it tougher-First step to being able to compete against that is a 7-6 2015.
Also, the notion that we had some "adventure into pussy non-con scheduling" is just flat out wrong.
CU's non-con since 2006:
2006- CSU, Montana State, Arizona State, Georgia
2007- CSU, Arizona State, Florida State, Miami (OH)
2008- CSU, Eastern Washington, West Virginia, Florida State
2009- CSU, Toledo, Wyoming, West Virginia
2010- CSU, Cal, Hawaii, Georgia
2011- CSU, Cal, Hawaii, Ohio State
2012- CSU, Sac St, Fresno St.
2013- CSU, Central Arkansas, Fresno (Cancelled), Charlestown Southern
2014- CSU, UMASS, Hawaii
Of all those "pussy" teams we played over the past 9 seasons, we lost to 2 of them. So really, Skid, how did that truly affect the program again???
CU's non-con since 2006:
2006- CSU, Montana State, Arizona State, Georgia
2007- CSU, Arizona State, Florida State, Miami (OH)
2008- CSU, Eastern Washington, West Virginia, Florida State
2009- CSU, Toledo, Wyoming, West Virginia
2010- CSU, Cal, Hawaii, Georgia
2011- CSU, Cal, Hawaii, Ohio State
2012- CSU, Sac St, Fresno St.
2013- CSU, Central Arkansas, Fresno (Cancelled), Charlestown Southern
2014- CSU, UMASS, Hawaii
Of all those "pussy" teams we played over the past 9 seasons, we lost to 2 of them. So really, Skid, how did that truly affect the program again???
Ok, but had they avoided a "pussy" team like Montana State that year and scheduled LSU for example, they would have had CSU, LSU, ASU, and Georgia.
Partially, but I'm also making the argument that we will be required to have a minimum of 10 P5 teams/year, how the hell is that not enough when we play in the Pac 12?
dply
Doble hoja
Sounds great to me. Plus the record wouldn't have changed most likely. Maybe our players don't overlook LSU. We had Bernard Jackson so it probably wouldn't have mattered. :lol:
This is true!
dply
Doble hoja
Because we are irrelevant. Maybe scheduling a softer schedule would get us into some low bowl game. (which would be nice for practice sake) But if CU plays New Mexico in some lower bowl does anyone watch? If CU plays Aggie or TCU you will have the eyes of Texas on us. Maybe that helps us get a player or two that wouldn't have paid us any mind.
I look at all the Braves and Cub fans in Colorado and see how powerful getting a team in front of viewers can be. Getting stuff fixed with DirecTv would help. (I'm on Larry's side.) But getting us out of irrelevancy would help even more.