Dave in Green

I'm as enthusiastic about the concept of moving Zips football to Spring as I am the concept of moving Christmas to June.

Back to the original premise of this thread: If NIU goes to a second straight BCS bowl game, it would be a phenomenal accomplishment for a team with MAC-level resources. It's a goal that UA should aim for, and it's achievable with Coach Bowden, Coach Amato and others like them. If the Zips could do what NIU is in the process of doing, the Big Dialer would be full every weekend and the Zips would be the darling of the media, both local and national. That level achievement generates huge national attention because Americans love scrappy underdogs. By comparison, winning a national championship in a lower division is a yawner to most sports fans and barely gets mentioned in the media. I'd rather have the Zips be the scrappiest little fish ever seen in the big pond than the biggest fish in a little puddle. Think Bigger was a great theme for the Zips basketball team. Think Smaller is a horrible theme for the Zips football team.

Two eternal conflicting themes on ZN.o: 1. We wish for other teams in the MAC to fail. 2. We wish the MAC was stronger so UA would get more respect for winning in the MAC.

Right, good teams have bad days and bad teams have good days. Sometimes they come together and there's a big upset. What I meant by my previous post is that while the national rankings are flawed, they're flawed in a way that we're mostly familiar with. The example of losing early in the season being considered less damaging than losing late in the season is a good example of something that many consider as a flaw. But if the national championship is supposed to be about the two best teams playing at the end of the season, then it makes sense that the two strongest teams at the end of the season meet. A team that was strong early in the season can fall apart, and a team that started slowly could evolve into the best at the end of the season. While the BCS standings have imperfections like any individual poll, at least the BCS standings have offsetting imperfections. One human poll is comprised of journalists, who have their own set of insights and biases. The other consists of coaches, who have another set of insights and biases. The computer programs are all over the map. Has anyone looked closely at how much variation there is in the six computer rankings? But averaging six of them probably results in a reasonably accurate picture from the computer perspective. Averaging the two human polls and six computer rankings probably comes as close to accurate as anything else out there. I think that reasonable points can be made about moving various teams around a few positions here and there. But I don't think that any teams are grossly out of place in the BCS standings. Because each team is built differently with different strengths and weaknesses, they're going to match up differently against different teams. So it may be possible that the #5 team matches up better against the #1 team than the #2 team matches up against the #1 team. We don't really know before the game is played, and we don't really know after the game what would have happened if the matchup had been different. But it's fun and entertaining to discuss all the possibilities on sports forums as long as we stay focused and don't get distracted down blind alleys.

If everyone is going to use their own personal standards of which teams are strong and which are weak, this discussion is going nowhere. The various ranking services may be imperfect, but so are personal opinions. At least the national rankings provide a common measurement, so using them will make the discussion apples vs. apples rather than apples vs. oranges.

Maybe that poster is the one who pushed Ohio to the top of the list of least courteous states that @Keener'92 posted in OT. I was taken aback when he first popped that line on me a few years ago. But the moderators said just to ignore him, which is really easy to do. Early last season he posted here that Notre Dame was no longer relevant in college football, and they ended up playing in the national championship game. So whatever he says, think the opposite.

@Buckzip, all I said was that both teams were trending up in recruiting class strength in the two classes following the announcement of them joining the SEC. As you point out, recruiting is a complex equation and the public is not privy to everything that goes on behind the scenes. If you look at their recruiting classes over a period of years, they've trended up and down while remaining in the Big 12. Statistically speaking, two seasons of upward trend are not sufficient to establish a clear pattern. If they keep trending up over the next few years and remain at a higher level than their historic Big 12 levels, then you could reasonably conclude that the SEC is likely a factor in giving them a lasting recruiting boost over the Big 12.

Breaking it down a little, tOSU now has a coach who won two national championships while in the SEC, so coaching shouldn't hold them back from beating SEC teams. Almost every season tOSU is ranked with a top 5 or top 10 recruiting class, so they should have player talent equivalent to the best SEC teams that also finish in the top 5 or 10 in recruiting. The one area where tOSU appears to be most challenged is in experience playing against other top teams. The top SEC teams typically have higher SOS, so they've played against tougher opponents during the regular season. Maybe the top SEC teams only play one or two teams a season that are significantly better than anyone on tOSU's schedule. But those games would be the equivalent of being matched against a high-ranked team in a bowl. So the top SEC teams come into the bowl season with more big-game experience. I think someone already posted that the oddsmakers would favor both Alabama and Missouri over tOSU, but would favor tOSU over Auburn. I think I'd give Auburn a small edge based on their big-game experience. The Michigan game was a big red flag. It was the biggest game of the season so far for tOSU, and they barely held on to beat a team that Zips fans know to be no powerhouse. Based on all of the above, I think that tOSU would need a lot of luck to beat any of the top 3 SEC teams.

You're right. I went to all the trouble to look up the numbers and then misread them. Both A&M and Mizzou are trending up in the two recruiting classes following the SEC announcement. Mizzou remains pretty far behind the top SEC teams, so their record is even more impressive with lower-ranked recruiting classes.

@Legend of Zippy, citing results and standings is not "bragging," it's reality. I have no love for the SEC or hate for the B1G. @zippy5, I just took a quick look at Rivals.com's rankings of recruiting classes for Texas A&M and Missouri for 2008-2013 to see how their recruiting classes improved from 3 seasons prior through the SEC announcement in 2011 and up until last season: Texas A&M: 16, 22, 17, 27, 15, 11 Missouri: 25, 40, 21, 48, 31, 41 So it looks as if both schools took a hit in 2011 after the SEC announcement and had weaker recruiting classes. They bounced back some in their first season in the SEC, and then Texas A&M continued to improve while Missouri took another dive. Overall it appears that Texas A&M has benefitted a little more than Missouri from their SEC status. But from this alone it doesn't appear that the SEC gave them any special advantage over what they were already getting from the Big 12.

@zippy5, the official announcement of Missouri and Texas A&M joining the SEC came in November 2011. That was good timing for 2012 commitments, so it's reasonable to think that they may have picked up a few key recruits who've helped improve their programs. It's also possible that they picked up some transfers, though I haven't really tried to analyze it in detail. But you're certainly right to suggest that those two programs are already enjoying the early benefits of being able to recruit as SEC teams. That would be at least a small advantage over Big 12 recruiting, which wasn't exactly shabby.

Actually, I do think that Missouri might be a better overall team than Auburn. I think Auburn has caught a couple of really lucky breaks. Sometimes a team of destiny like that comes along and stays lucky right up through the end, and sometimes the coach turns into a pumpkin before midnight. I think this weekend's games are going to be really interesting. I also think the SEC will do well in the various bowls, but will not be invincible. We can revisit that in January.

I'm sure the SEC is not as great as some think because some think they walk on water. As far as depth, they currently have 3 of the top 5 and 4 of the top 8 in the BCS standings. I'd bet on those top 4 against the top 4 from any other conference, and I'm not even a bettor.

If producing the national champion 7 straight seasons does not make a conference great, then what measure should be used? What conference has been greater over the last 7 seasons and why?

Thanks. Having moved to Ohio later in life, this helps give me a better understanding of why ZN.o is what it is.

If the measure of greatness in sports is winning, 7 straight national championships should be sufficient to remove all reasonable doubt. However, since sports fans are not reasonable, the debate will go on.

Give double credit to the SEC for their foresight.

Give the SEC credit for selecting two new schools with teams that fit right into the SEC dominance.

@trimmy10, oddsmakers are giving Missouri a lot of respect. Auburn opened as just a 1-point favorite.

It won't be the computers that decide this. The human polls, which account for 2/3rds of the BCS formula, will be the deciding factor. If both Auburn and tOSU win, the computers will give Auburn slightly more credit for beating #5 Missouri than tOSU will get for beating #10 Michigan State. That in itself would not be enough to change the rankings. But if tOSU squeaks by MSU and Auburn trounces Missouri, we are going to see a wild scramble in the human polls. Human voters can be swayed by style points.

It sounds as if we got Saint Mary's and South Carolina on ESPN's terms. Are any Zips fans really opposed to establishing a good relationship with the guys who control so much of college basketball's TV coverage? Do any Zips fans really think that getting games with Saint Mary's and South Carolina plus an invitation to the Charleston Classic is a bad tradeoff for a slightly unbalanced early-season schedule?

I don't recall seeing it posted here and I don't know for sure if it's a fact. But I think it's safe to assume that UA would receive more money for playing SC in SC than in Hawaii. My understanding is that SC was specifically looking to fill an open home game date and UA agreed. The more majors the Zips play the better. Correction: It was posted here.

Simple story: All teams prefer to play at home in front of their fans rather than on the road or neutral sites. South Carolina is in the SEC and UA is a mid-major. Major conference teams have more scheduling clout than mid-majors because mid-majors "need" to play majors more than they "need" to play us. We play on their terms.

Good observation. Stats aren't required to measure entertainment value, and sports are entertainment. I'd rather watch an entertaining game between two MAC teams than a boring game between two BCS conference teams. MACtion is gaining traction because it delivers what it promises. I'm looking forward to watching the NIU-BGSU shootout.

Many years ago when I was being investigated for a top secret crypto security clearance, the FBI was all over my hometown interviewing people about my background. The joke among my friends was that they thought I had been plotting to assassinate the President.