Now that's how you schedule for football

[cornbread]

And all the best to them thar Bulls. My point is with the exception of the last few years they were the doormat of the MAC, and the schedule they have may help speed their return to that status (although they will get there one way or another).

You do realize they were only an FBS starting in 2000 right? so your points wan an FCS team that moved up was a doormat from 2000-2006?

2007 5-3 conference

2008 5-3 conference

2009 3-5 conference

Now UB may fall back to six years of doormat status but I really doubt it... And if they do it will have nothing to do with the fact our non-conf is hard..

It is hard to argue with numbers.

[MaxZIP]

And all the best to them thar Bulls. My point is with the exception of the last few years they were the doormat of the MAC, and the schedule they have may help speed their return to that status (although they will get there one way or another).

You do realize they were only an FBS starting in 2000 right? so your points wan an FCS team that moved up was a doormat from 2000-2006?

2007 5-3 conference

2008 5-3 conference

2009 3-5 conference

Now UB may fall back to six years of doormat status but I really doubt it... And if they do it will have nothing to do with the fact our non-conf is hard..

It is hard to argue with numbers.

I thought I was the only one having trouble understanding that. The non-conf schedule has nothing to do with MAC record.

[Zipmeister]

And all the best to them thar Bulls. My point is with the exception of the last few years they were the doormat of the MAC, and the schedule they have may help speed their return to that status (although they will get there one way or another).

You do realize they were only an FBS starting in 2000 right? so your points wan an FCS team that moved up was a doormat from 2000-2006?

2007 5-3 conference

2008 5-3 conference

2009 3-5 conference

Now UB may fall back to six years of doormat status but I really doubt it... And if they do it will have nothing to do with the fact our non-conf is hard..

It is hard to argue with numbers.

I thought I was the only one having trouble understanding that. The non-conf schedule has nothing to do with MAC record.

You didn't ride the short bus to school did you?

[GP1]

And all the best to them thar Bulls. My point is with the exception of the last few years they were the doormat of the MAC, and the schedule they have may help speed their return to that status (although they will get there one way or another).

You do realize they were only an FBS starting in 2000 right? so your points wan an FCS team that moved up was a doormat from 2000-2006?

2007 5-3 conference

2008 5-3 conference

2009 3-5 conference

Now UB may fall back to six years of doormat status but I really doubt it... And if they do it will have nothing to do with the fact our non-conf is hard..

It is hard to argue with numbers.

I thought I was the only one having trouble understanding that. The non-conf schedule has nothing to do with MAC record.

It may or it may not. Football is a game of momentum. Extremely difficult ooc schedules make it difficult for a team to gain early season momentum. Other things that impact are the number of back to back road games teams play. The Zips play back to back road games three times this coming season. That's no good.

5-3 is actually an average to below average MAC record. The league is terrible and if you have a pulse you should be able to win five games.

Lastly, 5-3 is one thing, but if you go 1-3 ooc, the final record is 6-6. Nobody gets excited about a 6-6 team that gets their ass kick by BCS teams three times a year.

[cornbread]

It may or it may not. Football is a game of momentum. Extremely difficult ooc schedules make it difficult for a team to gain early season momentum. Other things that impact are the number of back to back road games teams play. The Zips play back to back road games three times this coming season. That's no good.

5-3 is actually an average to below average MAC record. The league is terrible and if you have a pulse you should be able to win five games.

Lastly, 5-3 is one thing, but if you go 1-3 ooc, the final record is 6-6. Nobody gets excited about a 6-6 team that gets their ass kick by BCS teams three times a year.

5-3 in conference is better than average. It is still very difficult to argue with numbers.

I think that momentum is important, but facing good competition is better. That Penn State trip was fun. Sucks we lost. Cool to see where we stacked up.

[Bull_In_Exile]

And all the best to them thar Bulls. My point is with the exception of the last few years they were the doormat of the MAC, and the schedule they have may help speed their return to that status (although they will get there one way or another).

You do realize they were only an FBS starting in 2000 right? so your points wan an FCS team that moved up was a doormat from 2000-2006?

2007 5-3 conference

2008 5-3 conference

2009 3-5 conference

Now UB may fall back to six years of doormat status but I really doubt it... And if they do it will have nothing to do with the fact our non-conf is hard..

It is hard to argue with numbers.

I thought I was the only one having trouble understanding that. The non-conf schedule has nothing to do with MAC record.

It may or it may not. Football is a game of momentum. Extremely difficult ooc schedules make it difficult for a team to gain early season momentum. Other things that impact are the number of back to back road games teams play. The Zips play back to back road games three times this coming season. That's no good.

5-3 is actually an average to below average MAC record. The league is terrible and if you have a pulse you should be able to win five games.

Lastly, 5-3 is one thing, but if you go 1-3 ooc, the final record is 6-6. Nobody gets excited about a 6-6 team that gets their ass kick by BCS teams three times a year.

1) 5-3 is below average? 4-4 is the *average* MAC record in any given season (and it always will be) last year only 5 teams finished better than 4-4 with NIU being the lowest? was NIU a below average team last season? (in terms of the MAC conference). You have to go back to 2006 to find the last time the conference finished with more than five teams that did better than 4-4.

2) do you think people get excited about a seven win team that goes 5-3 in the MAC and beats Morgan State and Bugtussle U out of conference? Really?

[Dr Z]

1) 5-3 is below average?

Maybe he was factoring in the "home pass interference calls"

[GP1]

It may or it may not. Football is a game of momentum. Extremely difficult ooc schedules make it difficult for a team to gain early season momentum. Other things that impact are the number of back to back road games teams play. The Zips play back to back road games three times this coming season. That's no good.

5-3 is actually an average to below average MAC record. The league is terrible and if you have a pulse you should be able to win five games.

Lastly, 5-3 is one thing, but if you go 1-3 ooc, the final record is 6-6. Nobody gets excited about a 6-6 team that gets their ass kick by BCS teams three times a year.

5-3 in conference is better than average. It is still very difficult to argue with numbers.

I think that momentum is important, but facing good competition is better. That Penn State trip was fun. Sucks we lost. Cool to see where we stacked up.

Do we really need to get our ass kicked three times a year by BCS schools to know the MAC is at or extremely close to the bottom of D-1A conferences?

I have a real problem with the thought that it is fun to go somewhere and watch your team get killed for three hours three times a year.

I'll stand by a 5-3 MAC record as average. The league is terrible and one game over .500 in a bad league is average.

If you want good competition, why wouldn't the schedule I posted prevously of MTSU, Troy, BCS and I-AA constitute "good competition". It is good competition for both schools. When we play PSU, it is good overwhelming competition for us and scrimmage for them. We should be playing I-A teams from conferences that are on par with the MAC.

I'll break out another Wake Forest analogy. I know how much you guys like them. Wake's scheduling philosophy is not to load up on Florida, Texas and Alabama to see where they stack up. Their philosophy is to schedule teams at the same academic level they are at. Wake is an EXTREMELY good academic school. Translation, good academic schools can not attract the type of "athlete" lesser academic schools can attract so they play within their competition level. Next year, Wake plays an ooc schedule of at Stanford, Navy, at Vandy and Presbyterian (promotional item for the Presby game is free admission to a post game book burning of books that use the word "breast" in them). Anyhow, all of the D-I ooc games are against schools that have very high academic standards giving Wake a chance to compete in a realistic way.

Our ooc schedule does not take realistic competition into account...it takes money into account. If they AD is going to destroy the football program, like Miami's has, with one BCS school after another in order to make money, he should just admit to it. It will save me the energy of worrying about the first four games of the season. We should play one BCS school per year, one I-AA and two non-BCS teams we could actually beat.

[Bull_In_Exile]

I'll break out another Wake Forest analogy. I know how much you guys like them. Wake's scheduling philosophy is not to load up on Florida, Texas and Alabama to see where they stack up. Their philosophy is to schedule teams at the same academic level they are at. Wake is an EXTREMELY good academic school. Translation, good academic schools can not attract the type of "athlete" lesser academic schools can attract so they play within their competition level. Next year, Wake plays an ooc schedule of at Stanford, Navy, at Vandy and Presbyterian (promotional item for the Presby game is free admission to a post game book burning of books that use the word "breast" in them). Anyhow, all of the D-I ooc games are against schools that have very high academic standards giving Wake a chance to compete in a realistic way.

Our ooc schedule does not take realistic competition into account...it takes money into account. If they AD is going to destroy the football program, like Miami's has, with one BCS school after another in order to make money, he should just admit to it. It will save me the energy of worrying about the first four games of the season. We should play one BCS school per year, one I-AA and two non-BCS teams we could actually beat.

What you are leaving out is that Wake is in a strong conference... They play Teams on par with UConn and Boston College (conf game for them) for the better part of their season. So where UB/Akron have eight games in a gutter conference (by your reckoning) and two, or three against good teams Wake Forrest has 5 or 6 games against teams that have a good shot at being ranked.

So yes MAC teams can settle into their mediocre conference and get other teams from other mediocre conferences to play them in the hopes of (1) being no better. Or they can try to get two, or three games a year which will boost attendance, get publicity, and give the program something to shoot for.

Warde Manuel is not going the Miami route of 5 home games and taking the money, these are home and home arrangements with regionally known and followed teams (hence Army is in the mix in the future).

Akron who has about the best stadium in the MAC can go the same route..

[johnnyzip84]

I'll break out another Wake Forest analogy. I know how much you guys like them. Wake's scheduling philosophy is not to load up on Florida, Texas and Alabama to see where they stack up. Their philosophy is to schedule teams at the same academic level they are at. Wake is an EXTREMELY good academic school. Translation, good academic schools can not attract the type of "athlete" lesser academic schools can attract so they play within their competition level. Next year, Wake plays an ooc schedule of at Stanford, Navy, at Vandy and Presbyterian (promotional item for the Presby game is free admission to a post game book burning of books that use the word "breast" in them). Anyhow, all of the D-I ooc games are against schools that have very high academic standards giving Wake a chance to compete in a realistic way.

Our ooc schedule does not take realistic competition into account...it takes money into account. If they AD is going to destroy the football program, like Miami's has, with one BCS school after another in order to make money, he should just admit to it. It will save me the energy of worrying about the first four games of the season. We should play one BCS school per year, one I-AA and two non-BCS teams we could actually beat.

What you are leaving out is that Wake is in a strong conference... They play Teams on par with UConn and Boston College (conf game for them) for the better part of their season. So where UB/Akron have eight games in a gutter conference (by your reckoning) and two, or three against good teams Wake Forrest has 5 or 6 games against teams that have a good shot at being ranked.

So yes MAC teams can settle into their mediocre conference and get other teams from other mediocre conferences to play them in the hopes of (1) being no better. Or they can try to get two, or three games a year which will boost attendance, get publicity, and give the program something to shoot for.

Warde Manuel is not going the Miami route of 5 home games and taking the money, these are home and home arrangements with regionally known and followed teams (hence Army is in the mix in the future).

Akron who has about the best stadium in the MAC can go the same route..

You almost had this right. The Info IS the best stadium in the MAC! Besides, I thought Canadians pronounced it "a-boat" Just a little good natured ribbing. I know you don't live near Buffalo anymore

As far as the scheduling argument goes, I generally agree that more than one BCS team is a difficult assignment for any MAC school. Two in one season is pushing it and three is simply too many. BUT, the Zips may get lucky this year in that the three BCS teams on the schedule don't appear to be powerhouses.

[GP1]

What you are leaving out is that Wake is in a strong conference... They play Teams on par with UConn and Boston College (conf game for them) for the better part of their season. So where UB/Akron have eight games in a gutter conference (by your reckoning) and two, or three against good teams Wake Forrest has 5 or 6 games against teams that have a good shot at being ranked.

So yes MAC teams can settle into their mediocre conference and get other teams from other mediocre conferences to play them in the hopes of (1) being no better. Or they can try to get two, or three games a year which will boost attendance, get publicity, and give the program something to shoot for.

There is no way UB or UofA are going to get three BCS teams to come to their stadium in one year. The only thing they boost is their loss total against BCS teams. I don't believe Joe Akron or Joe Buffalo sits around and says, "Hey, let's go see UB play this week. I see they got their asses kicked by 50 by PSU last week. I want to see that team play."

Is Wake in a good conference? Yes, but they are also a middle to bottom of the pack team in their league. Wake struggles to make .500 each season which would get them to a bowl. They stand a better shot at a bowl by playing Stanford, Navy, Presby and Vandy than they do Presby, Alabama, Florida and Texas. Want to impress a bowl selectoin committe? Don't go 1-3 ooc and 0-3 against BCS teams, go 2-2 or 3-1 in ooc play then finish 5-3 in the mac and you are more impressive. The mac schedule should not be the crutch for teams to get to .500 and a bowl....it should be part of a strategy combining quality conference play with quality ooc scheduling.

[GP1]

Warde Manuel is not going the Miami route of 5 home games and taking the money, these are home and home arrangements with regionally known and followed teams (hence Army is in the mix in the future).

Army is good scheduling for UB for the reasons you mentioned above. Non BCS school that has struggled as of late. Good shot at winning.

[MaxZIP]

Warde Manuel is not going the Miami route of 5 home games and taking the money, these are home and home arrangements with regionally known and followed teams (hence Army is in the mix in the future).

Army is good scheduling for UB for the reasons you mentioned above. Non BCS school that has struggled as of late. Good shot at winning.

MAC Champs from 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 (Lost 1 BCS and to Army), 2004 all lost to at least 2 BCS teams to start out the season. The 2003 Miami Championship team lost to Iowa on the way to a #13 ranked season. They beat Northwestern, Colorado, Cincinnati, Central Florida, and Louisville. The 2009 CMU Champ team lost to Arizona away and beat MSU in East Lansing. Losing to BCS teams early apparently has nothing to do with MAC success or momentum.

[dreal1scout]

. Give each and every team a chance to take their piece of the pie through commitment, perseverance, and incremental change. Success just doesn't happen overnight. Set a goal and get it done. No more crap about how the big boys are beating us up. Ask the players how they feel about stepping on the field with Penn State. I bet not one of them would turn down an opportunity to show their talent against one of the top programs in the country.

You got that 100% right! Give us Penn State (they are still our Bitc..s) or any other top BCS team. Our players WANt that. That's why they play the game, and why they make a helluva lot of sacrifices. They want to prove themselves. If they do get beat, it only makes them tougher. I want UA on the map with the best. Yes, it may take some time, but we got to start now! This upcoming season is going to prove that we are on the way up. I don't care what any whiny-ass, pessimistic fans (?) think/post. We have the talent and desire to Kick Some Real Ass. And we will. GO ZIPS!! AND BEYOND!

[GP1]

Warde Manuel is not going the Miami route of 5 home games and taking the money, these are home and home arrangements with regionally known and followed teams (hence Army is in the mix in the future).

Army is good scheduling for UB for the reasons you mentioned above. Non BCS school that has struggled as of late. Good shot at winning.

MAC Champs from 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 (Lost 1 BCS and to Army), 2004 all lost to at least 2 BCS teams to start out the season. The 2003 Miami Championship team lost to Iowa on the way to a #13 ranked season. They beat Northwestern, Colorado, Cincinnati, Central Florida, and Louisville. The 2009 CMU Champ team lost to Arizona away and beat MSU in East Lansing. Losing to BCS teams early apparently has nothing to do with MAC success or momentum.

Once again, the exception and not the rule. Miami had the best QB to come out of his draft class that year. They are an exception.

You are thinking in the extreme. Losing to one BCS team is fine. Two maybe you can be OK. Three is a disaster waiting to happen.

I think you guys are nuts if you think we should continue to schedule 3 BCS teams per year. There is no evidence it is helping the program in any way but financially. Let's keep pointing to the exceptions to the rules though and that one time out of 20 we beat one BCS team we can all feel good. Man, I can't wait to see how we stacked up in the other 19 games.

[GP1]

You got that 100% right! Give us Penn State (they are still our Bitc..s) or any other top BCS team. Our players WANt that.

That's fine, give it to them once a year.

[dreal1scout]

You got that 100% right! Give us Penn State (they are still our Bitc..s) or any other top BCS team. Our players WANt that.

That's fine, give it to them once a year.

I can agree with that. One big name BCS team a year. But the rest of our OOC should not be cupcakes. We can't improve without being challenged.

[skip-zip]

I'm sorry, but I just can't see why anyone wants to defend why we should play a "lighter" schedule. Wouldn't you want to see us playing a BCS school as opposed to Morgan State? Isn't it more exciting for fans?

We're a MAC school. Going 7-5 or 8-4 makes no differnence to anyone on the large platform of college football. Therefore, scheduling a game against a nobody over a game against a BCS school makes no sense at all to me.

[MaxZIP]

Warde Manuel is not going the Miami route of 5 home games and taking the money, these are home and home arrangements with regionally known and followed teams (hence Army is in the mix in the future).

Army is good scheduling for UB for the reasons you mentioned above. Non BCS school that has struggled as of late. Good shot at winning.

MAC Champs from 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 (Lost 1 BCS and to Army), 2004 all lost to at least 2 BCS teams to start out the season. The 2003 Miami Championship team lost to Iowa on the way to a #13 ranked season. They beat Northwestern, Colorado, Cincinnati, Central Florida, and Louisville. The 2009 CMU Champ team lost to Arizona away and beat MSU in East Lansing. Losing to BCS teams early apparently has nothing to do with MAC success or momentum.

Once again, the exception and not the rule. Miami had the best QB to come out of his draft class that year. They are an exception.

You are thinking in the extreme. Losing to one BCS team is fine. Two maybe you can be OK. Three is a disaster waiting to happen.

I think you guys are nuts if you think we should continue to schedule 3 BCS teams per year. There is no evidence it is helping the program in any way but financially. Let's keep pointing to the exceptions to the rules though and that one time out of 20 we beat one BCS team we can all feel good. Man, I can't wait to see how we stacked up in the other 19 games.

The point of that post was to show that losing to 2 BCS teams will have nothing to do with what happens during the MAC season. Play two BCS teams and a FCS team each year. Earlier it was said that losing two games to start the season will swing momentum against a team entering the MAC season. It doesn't appear to be relevant as shown by the fact that MAC champions lose to two BCS teams on the regular and fare well against MAC opponents. The 03 Miami team had nothing to do with the argument at hand. I just threw that in because it was interesting. I am not "thinking on the extreme". Losing to BCS teams has nothing to do with MAC success and has little to do with whether or not we get a crap bowl appearance. Schedule BCS teams, get the brand on tv, fill the coffers, and give the players what they want. 3 BCS games per year might be a little extreme if they are not 1 for 1. Schedule them up if we can get three 1-1 series per year. Recruits would be likely to choose a MAC school with 3 BCS opponents on the schedule every year as opposed to a team with a bunch of scrubs. Play the games and build the program. We could schedule like BB and win 8 or nine games/year and end up playing in some crap bowl that actually costs the program money.

[GP1]

I'm sorry, but I just can't see why anyone wants to defend why we should play a "lighter" schedule. Wouldn't you want to see us playing a BCS school as opposed to Morgan State? Isn't it more exciting for fans?

We're a MAC school. Going 7-5 or 8-4 makes no differnence to anyone on the large platform of college football. Therefore, scheduling a game against a nobody over a game against a BCS school makes no sense at all to me.

Again, you are thinking in the extreme. Morgan State is I-AA. One Morgan State is fine. Two probably not. Three, no way.

One PSU is fine, two probably not, three, no thanks.

Is it exciting for me to watch UofA take a beat down three of four ooc games against BCS teams? No. In fact, it is a comlete waste of time. Would I be more excited against Colorado State or New Mexico State or MTSU or Marshall? Hell yes! I want to watch the Zips play good competition against teams they have a realistic shot at beating and the other team has a realistic shot at beating the Zips. That's good competition. They are guaranteed to beat Morgan State. They are guaranteed to lose to PSU. They could beat a non-BCS team. I'll take the excitement of the unknown in a game matching two well equal teams rather than a certain loss or certain win.

[GP1]

Schedule BCS teams, get the brand on tv, fill the coffers, and give the players what they want.

1. Why would you want your brand on TV getting its ass kicked by the competition? The last thing we want is the Zips on TV getting a beat down. This is like watching Kyle Petty race a car. You know he isn't going to win and you know he is a bad driver. Nobody goes to watch Kyle Petty.

2. They may fill the coffers, but when Joe Akron sees they are 1-3, they aren't going to fill any seats at The Big Dialer.

3. Give the players what they want? Why? They are the same guys who got the last coach fired. Why would we listen to them? Why would we have an AD? Just let the players run the program.

[MaxZIP]

I'm sorry, but I just can't see why anyone wants to defend why we should play a "lighter" schedule. Wouldn't you want to see us playing a BCS school as opposed to Morgan State? Isn't it more exciting for fans?

We're a MAC school. Going 7-5 or 8-4 makes no differnence to anyone on the large platform of college football. Therefore, scheduling a game against a nobody over a game against a BCS school makes no sense at all to me.

Again, you are thinking in the extreme. Morgan State is I-AA. One Morgan State is fine. Two probably not. Three, no way.

One PSU is fine, two probably not, three, no thanks.

Is it exciting for me to watch UofA take a beat down three of four ooc games against BCS teams? No. In fact, it is a comlete waste of time. Would I be more excited against Colorado State or New Mexico State or MTSU or Marshall? Hell yes! I want to watch the Zips play good competition against teams they have a realistic shot at beating and the other team has a realistic shot at beating the Zips. That's good competition. They are guaranteed to beat Morgan State. They are guaranteed to lose to PSU. They could beat a non-BCS team. I'll take the excitement of the unknown in a game matching two well equal teams rather than a certain loss or certain win.

I would love to see teams on the lower end of the BCS success cycle(Maryland, BC, UCONN, Syracuse, Virginia, Iowa State, Indiana). Who cares about MTSU (Besides Mr. Holcomb) and New Mexico State. Colorado State would be ok and Marshall would be better than average. Schedule up and play up. The key factor is getting them to Akron. Buffalo has done what Akron only can dream of. I still remember the hype surrounding when Wisconsin visited Can't. Bringing top teams to Akron will do more for the program and the school than even joining C-USA. Grab the attention of local fans.

[MaxZIP]

Schedule BCS teams, get the brand on tv, fill the coffers, and give the players what they want.

1. Why would you want your brand on TV getting its ass kicked by the competition? The last thing we want is the Zips on TV getting a beat down. This is like watching Kyle Petty race a car. You know he isn't going to win and you know he is a bad driver. Nobody goes to watch Kyle Petty.

2. They may fill the coffers, but when Joe Akron sees they are 1-3, they aren't going to fill any seats at The Big Dialer.

3. Give the players what they want? Why? They are the same guys who got the last coach fired. Why would we listen to them? Why would we have an AD? Just let the players run the program.

1. defeatist

2. they aren't going to get filled losing to Marshall

3. I don't even know where to begin with that. Support the team?

[dreal1scout]

I'm sorry, but I just can't see why anyone wants to defend why we should play a "lighter" schedule. Wouldn't you want to see us playing a BCS school as opposed to Morgan State? Isn't it more exciting for fans?

We're a MAC school. Going 7-5 or 8-4 makes no differnence to anyone on the large platform of college football. Therefore, scheduling a game against a nobody over a game against a BCS school makes no sense at all to me.

Again, you are thinking in the extreme. Morgan State is I-AA. One Morgan State is fine. Two probably not. Three, no way.

One PSU is fine, two probably not, three, no thanks.

Is it exciting for me to watch UofA take a beat down three of four ooc games against BCS teams? No. In fact, it is a comlete waste of time. Would I be more excited against Colorado State or New Mexico State or MTSU or Marshall? Hell yes! I want to watch the Zips play good competition against teams they have a realistic shot at beating and the other team has a realistic shot at beating the Zips. That's good competition. They are guaranteed to beat Morgan State. They are guaranteed to lose to PSU. They could beat a non-BCS team. I'll take the excitement of the unknown in a game matching two well equal teams rather than a certain loss or certain win.

[dreal1scout]

I'm sorry, but I just can't see why anyone wants to defend why we should play a "lighter" schedule. Wouldn't you want to see us playing a BCS school as opposed to Morgan State? Isn't it more exciting for fans?

We're a MAC school. Going 7-5 or 8-4 makes no differnence to anyone on the large platform of college football. Therefore, scheduling a game against a nobody over a game against a BCS school makes no sense at all to me.

Again, you are thinking in the extreme. Morgan State is I-AA. One Morgan State is fine. Two probably not. Three, no way.

One PSU is fine, two probably not, three, no thanks.

Is it exciting for me to watch UofA take a beat down three of four ooc games against BCS teams? No. In fact, it is a comlete waste of time. Would I be more excited against Colorado State or New Mexico State or MTSU or Marshall? Hell yes! I want to watch the Zips play good competition against teams they have a realistic shot at beating and the other team has a realistic shot at beating the Zips. That's good competition. They are guaranteed to beat Morgan State. They are guaranteed to lose to PSU. They could beat a non-BCS team. I'll take the excitement of the unknown in a game matching two well equal teams rather than a certain loss or certain win.

My Bad.

Botom line for me is: Good Competition begets better competition, a stronger/better team, more wins against teams that actually mean something, puts UA on the map, begets national TV exposure where we don't embarrass ourselves, but instead leave an indelible "ZIPS are the real deal" mark on the psyche of NCAA football. GO ZIPS!!