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!
Weak nonconference schedules really hurting Missouri and Kansas.
- Thread starter JimmyBuff
- Start date
BeachBronco
Active Member
Here is my schedule
#1 CSU, but go back to home and home and screw Invesco
#2 home game against Marshmellow U
#3 Home and Home against Pac 10 or SEC
#4 Home game against WAC, MAC or C-USA
#5 Big 12 Conference opener
etc....
We stick with the whole CSU thing but send it back to a home and home unless we make more money by playing in Denver. Game #2 is a home game against whatever it is they call Division 2 now. Game #3 is a home and home against a Pac 10 or SEC, gurantees National TV coverage and it is yourt prestigous showcase game. Game #4 is against the bottom of whatever they now call Division 1 football. A home game against a Houston or a Southern Miss is nothing to scoff at, they provide a decent matchup with a good chance of being picked up by Fox Sports or even a Thursday night game on ESPN. Then you roll on into your conference schedule but at least you are probably not battered and worn out before you even get to conference play. At 10-2 or even 9-3 you will make money with a softer schedule then playing 6-6 with murderers row.
#1 CSU, but go back to home and home and screw Invesco
#2 home game against Marshmellow U
#3 Home and Home against Pac 10 or SEC
#4 Home game against WAC, MAC or C-USA
#5 Big 12 Conference opener
etc....
We stick with the whole CSU thing but send it back to a home and home unless we make more money by playing in Denver. Game #2 is a home game against whatever it is they call Division 2 now. Game #3 is a home and home against a Pac 10 or SEC, gurantees National TV coverage and it is yourt prestigous showcase game. Game #4 is against the bottom of whatever they now call Division 1 football. A home game against a Houston or a Southern Miss is nothing to scoff at, they provide a decent matchup with a good chance of being picked up by Fox Sports or even a Thursday night game on ESPN. Then you roll on into your conference schedule but at least you are probably not battered and worn out before you even get to conference play. At 10-2 or even 9-3 you will make money with a softer schedule then playing 6-6 with murderers row.
92Buff
Well-Known Member
I also like the tough schedule. I like the entertainment and I like seeing how we compete against the better teams. Yes - I agree that you can overdo it, but I am looking forward to the upcoming schedules and have plans to go see some great games on the road through the year 2015.
Just go ask Major if getting a chance to line up against top tier teams and being seen on national TV frequently factored into his decision at all. You would have to be an idiot to think it did not.
Just listen to all of the folks now who are very quick to offer up why Kansas isn't deserving. "They haven't beat anybody" comes out in every conversation. Wait until they lose to Mizzou and see how far they are dropped - I bet they fall out of the top ten and play in a lower tier bowl game after OU, Texass, and Mizzou are picked for theirs (I say they even get picked last of those four if they beat Mizzou and lose int he CCG). In a typical year they would be not be higher that 6th in the rankings but luck is on their side this year up until now.
As for Jimmy and Col. - If we handed out annual awards they would be neck and neck for "Pissing on the Wheaties" award with a slight edge to Col for his consistency this year. :lol:
This. But we move CSU from first game of the season to later. Would not be against playing this game the weekend before thanksgiving.
i could live with this scheduling concept except i would like to see a rotation between the Big 11, Pac 10, and SEC for #3. I enjoy watching the buffs play the midwestern powerhouses every once in a while...
in addition i think we would need to do a H/h against the mid-majors in #4 (alternating years with teams in #3) because i believe we would need to keep our home schedule to seven games a year (inc CSU) to make the cost of a season ticket package palatable to most fans...
I don't like the idea of playing a Division 2 or whatever they are now opponent ever. It just isn't going to help with money issues or fairweather fans. Plus there is always the chance you lose as we all know. I just don't see the advantage in it.
BeachBronco
Active Member
The advantage is that you can play your starters perhaps only the first half and then get in your backups in the second half. This builds depth, it gives the coaches the chance to look at some kids in a game situation rather then just practices. It is a known fact that some athletes are not good practicers yet exceptional game day players and vice versa. We get back to winning 10+ games the stands will fill up regardless of who is on the schedule, why, because people want to be associated with a winner. I remember as a freshman waiting in line for 4 hours for my student football pass after the '89 season. No one really knew who we were playing, we just knew we were going to be good and win some games and we all wanted to be a part of it.
There is no reason for CU to ever play 1-AA teams. I'm not opposed to some cupcakes, but there is absolutely no upside to playing 1-AA teams.
Two points:
1)The proposed schedule above is exactly what we played this year, with the exception of one game. I don't think that replacing a Florida State with a D-II creampuff makes any difference in our fatigue/preparation of backups/etc. For those that actually go to games, would you trade the electric atmosphere of the FSU game this year for the atmosphere when Miami (Ohio) or Montana State rolls into town?
2)Those of us that remember the glory years of modern Buffs football (late 80s through 94) will also recall that CU had to run the absolute gauntlet in our best years. In 1989, our non-con schedule absolutely set the tone for our conference sched. I do not believe we would have run the table in the Big 8 that year if we had played a bunch of cream puffs early.
Proof:
1989 - TEXAS, csu, ILLINOIS, WASHINGTON - Regular Season Record: 11-0
1990 - TENNESSEE, STANFORD, ILLINOIS, TEXAS, WASHINGTON (!) - Regular Season Record: 10-1-1 (National Champions)
1994 - ne lousiana, WISCONSIN, MICHIGAN, TEXAS - Regular Season Record: 11-1 (with a rout of Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl for good measure - Final ranking #4)
1)The proposed schedule above is exactly what we played this year, with the exception of one game. I don't think that replacing a Florida State with a D-II creampuff makes any difference in our fatigue/preparation of backups/etc. For those that actually go to games, would you trade the electric atmosphere of the FSU game this year for the atmosphere when Miami (Ohio) or Montana State rolls into town?
2)Those of us that remember the glory years of modern Buffs football (late 80s through 94) will also recall that CU had to run the absolute gauntlet in our best years. In 1989, our non-con schedule absolutely set the tone for our conference sched. I do not believe we would have run the table in the Big 8 that year if we had played a bunch of cream puffs early.
Proof:
1989 - TEXAS, csu, ILLINOIS, WASHINGTON - Regular Season Record: 11-0
1990 - TENNESSEE, STANFORD, ILLINOIS, TEXAS, WASHINGTON (!) - Regular Season Record: 10-1-1 (National Champions)
1994 - ne lousiana, WISCONSIN, MICHIGAN, TEXAS - Regular Season Record: 11-1 (with a rout of Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl for good measure - Final ranking #4)
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
Don't forget that both OU and OSU were on near-death-penalty probation, weren't allowed to play in post-season play, weren't allowed to be televised, etc. in 1989 / 1990. In 1989 / 1990 the only conference foe worth a **** was Nebraska.
Perhaps you have a point THIS YEAR about not scheduling WVU and FSU in back-to-back weeks. However, it's going to help our exposure (recruiting) to be televised nationally both weeks. If you schedule nothing but cupcakes, you don't get this exposure, and start out the recruiting season behind. Further, you lose the recruiting draw of a big time schedule and an opportunity to play against the best. If that costs you even 1 top-tier prospect, I would argue that the extra win is not worth it. I think that you would lose more than 1 top-tier prospect a year due to both factors, and then in all likelihood the program gets stuck perpetually as an 8-9 win team.
Also, every year that you think that you have a chance to compete for a national championship (which should be every year for CU according to the blueprint Hawk has), you should always have at least one marquee OOC win (or in years like this year, game). Yes, Kansas will likely be #2 now, but last week they were #3 behind 2 one-loss teams. Imagine if Oregon and LSU were undefeated. Even if Kansas were to win out, they would still likely end up out of the Championship game because of the weakness of their OOC sched.
As one last example, think about the 2001 season. We ended the season by beating #2Nebraska and #3 Texas but NU still went to the championship game. We lost out on the extra revenue of playing for the D1 Championship instead going to the Fiesta Bowl. Why? Because look at our OOC schedule that year. Fresno State, San Jose State and CSU, and we lost to an unranked (both at the time and at the end of the season poll) Fresno State. If we swapped Fresno State for a Pac-10 or SEC team (say, Washington, who was ranked all season), even a loss becomes a boon for our ranking, which might have given enough to get us to the Rose Bowl.
With 4 OOC games, CU needs at the very, very least 1 strong BCS foe, 1 strong MWC or WAC foe, 1 creampuff, and CSU because of the chance that the marquis OOC game every year will be a dud due to how far in advance CU needs to schedule (i.e. Miami-Oklahoma this year). It would be wise to have an insurance policy, although once in a while you might end up with an OOC sched like ours next year.
/rant. Sorry for the long post.
Also, every year that you think that you have a chance to compete for a national championship (which should be every year for CU according to the blueprint Hawk has), you should always have at least one marquee OOC win (or in years like this year, game). Yes, Kansas will likely be #2 now, but last week they were #3 behind 2 one-loss teams. Imagine if Oregon and LSU were undefeated. Even if Kansas were to win out, they would still likely end up out of the Championship game because of the weakness of their OOC sched.
As one last example, think about the 2001 season. We ended the season by beating #2Nebraska and #3 Texas but NU still went to the championship game. We lost out on the extra revenue of playing for the D1 Championship instead going to the Fiesta Bowl. Why? Because look at our OOC schedule that year. Fresno State, San Jose State and CSU, and we lost to an unranked (both at the time and at the end of the season poll) Fresno State. If we swapped Fresno State for a Pac-10 or SEC team (say, Washington, who was ranked all season), even a loss becomes a boon for our ranking, which might have given enough to get us to the Rose Bowl.
With 4 OOC games, CU needs at the very, very least 1 strong BCS foe, 1 strong MWC or WAC foe, 1 creampuff, and CSU because of the chance that the marquis OOC game every year will be a dud due to how far in advance CU needs to schedule (i.e. Miami-Oklahoma this year). It would be wise to have an insurance policy, although once in a while you might end up with an OOC sched like ours next year.
/rant. Sorry for the long post.
77buff
Well-Known Member
Excellent point, I aree with you 100% - adding LSU was an idiot move. I'm not saying schedule Southeastern Louisiana instead, but what's wrong with Houston or Mississippi State? We already know the Broncos rule the market.
Getting our ****ing brains beaten out by a Top 10 team isn't going to change anything.
77buff
Well-Known Member
77buff
Well-Known Member
Excellent point, I agree with you 100% - adding LSU was an idiot move. I'm not saying schedule Southeastern Louisiana instead, but what's wrong with Houston or Mississippi State? We already know the Broncos rule the market.
Getting our ****ing brains beaten out by a Top 10 team isn't going to change anything.[/QUOTE]
Getting our ****ing brains beaten out by a Top 10 team isn't going to change anything.[/QUOTE]
Sexton Hardcastle
Club Member
To be the best, you got to beat the best.
We missed the championship game because we lost to Fresno State, not because of a weak schedule. We had two losses, and do you remember how many one loss teams we were ahead of? Oregon and Maryland off the top of my head. Our schedule that season actually helped us in the BCS formula.
In addition, adding on to a previous point, I think people forget how soft the Big 8 was when we were winning. It's a lot tougher to get through the conference schedule now, and less necessary to beef up the schedule to get quality wins.
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
If I cared to do the work (I don't:smile2
, then I would look at the teams in the top 10 on a regular basis and see what their non-conf looks like. If they have one good team and a few patsies, and get there, then we can too.
However, I can see big time gains this year from the team from last year, and if we played our schedule this year in a few years, I think we would have beat ASU (not given that lead up), FSU, KU, and ISU. Now MU, as strong as they were, would not be easy even with a much beter CU team. KSU probably a win with a better CU team.
All I am saying is that with a couple of years, I think Hawk will have us dissapointed in a 3 loss season, and I don't think that we will miss another bowl game in the forseeable future (after this year, depending on the NU game).
Can't expect too much in such a short time-- I think that if CU lost to OU and beat ISU, everyone would think that we were on track and be happy about it. But when we beat OU, then we thought that we were instantly the big dogs again and expected to win out. Still happy though, GB would have not even come close to beating Tech and OU this year.
, then I would look at the teams in the top 10 on a regular basis and see what their non-conf looks like. If they have one good team and a few patsies, and get there, then we can too.However, I can see big time gains this year from the team from last year, and if we played our schedule this year in a few years, I think we would have beat ASU (not given that lead up), FSU, KU, and ISU. Now MU, as strong as they were, would not be easy even with a much beter CU team. KSU probably a win with a better CU team.
All I am saying is that with a couple of years, I think Hawk will have us dissapointed in a 3 loss season, and I don't think that we will miss another bowl game in the forseeable future (after this year, depending on the NU game).
Can't expect too much in such a short time-- I think that if CU lost to OU and beat ISU, everyone would think that we were on track and be happy about it. But when we beat OU, then we thought that we were instantly the big dogs again and expected to win out. Still happy though, GB would have not even come close to beating Tech and OU this year.
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
I'll do it for you, at least for the top 5.
Based upon the most recent BCS poll: (BCS non-conference foes in bold)
#1 -- LSU
Va. Tech
Middle Tennessee State
at Tulane
La. Tech
#2 -- Kansas
Central Michigan
SE Louisiana
Toledo
Florida International
#3 -- West Virginia
Western Michigan
at Marshall
at Maryland
East Carolina
Mississippi State
#4 -- Missouri
at Illinois
at Ole Miss
Western Michigan
Illinois State
#5 -- Ohio State
Youngstown State
Akron
at Washington
Kent State
Based upon the most recent BCS poll: (BCS non-conference foes in bold)
#1 -- LSU
Va. Tech
Middle Tennessee State
at Tulane
La. Tech
#2 -- Kansas
Central Michigan
SE Louisiana
Toledo
Florida International
#3 -- West Virginia
Western Michigan
at Marshall
at Maryland
East Carolina
Mississippi State
#4 -- Missouri
at Illinois
at Ole Miss
Western Michigan
Illinois State
#5 -- Ohio State
Youngstown State
Akron
at Washington
Kent State
RalphieMalph
Well-Known Member
Now that, Slade, is actually a valid piece of arguing you laid out right there. However, there's two ways to do anything. Look at USC's recent non conference schedules... in the past 5 seasons they've played Auburn, Virginia Tech, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Notre Dame (though their hands are obviously tied on that one).
Personally, I love the way CU schedules. I don't want to see them change a thing. I'd much rather risk an early season loss to play an exciting game against a big time opponent than assure a bottom of the barrel bowl game by playing a bunch of nonsense directional schools.
BuffWFU
Member
Actually, we more likely (we'll never know though) missed out on the Championship Game because the WSU game was cancelled in September which, had we won, would have given us the points necessary to go to the game over the other team...
I had completely forgotten about that, but I think that lends credence to my argument that CU likely needs a "backup marquee" game in the OOC schedule. If that means that once every 5-6 years you end up with a run like "@FSU, WVU, Texas" like CU does next season, it's worth it. It all depends on if you want CU to be willing to risk an undefeated OOC schedule in exchange for better recruits and a higher potential bowl. In my opinion, I do because by nature I'm a high risk/high reward kind of guy.