We have shared the same stance on subjects in the past, but I will say that just because someone reads (be it an uneccessarily long post on a sports message board, or a book), and thinks, and does, will not make them better than anyone else or even make them a doer, let alone "all that matter". What it will do is end up making them alone. I was writing that to let you know if you would actually like others to consider your ideas, make them more concise. You will lose their interest when they see the post take up the whole page and move on in the discussion. Leaving you feeling like you have achieved a superior and undebatable point of view and post, and them feeling like they don't even care enough to discuss it further.
My guess is that we can take this up in a PM discussion with more success, 24. I still get this strong sense that you're operating on the assumption that popularity ought to be prized. Let me try to put it this way... if I'm writing in an about a politically-charged issue in an environment where there's a wide audience, it naturally should matter much more to me the feedback I receive from people who are widely read on the topic than the masses who are not--some of whom even take pride in how little tolerance they have for reading. I'd truly just as soon the latter not read. And it's my opinion... because it's how I am, too... that the former are
more likely to read when they see that there's some depth of thought that's been put into the endeavor. It's analogous to the same reason I'm one of those who appreciates the people who stay home from voting because they haven't cared enough to pay attention to the candidates' positions... leave it to the people who have cared enough, and we'll all be better off for it.
Moving on to scheduling, did you forget the last decade? Where we scheduled big....lost big... and it helped no one? Last year we won 10 games and suddenly we are back on the map. No one cares who we played, but the most die hard and analytical. We won 10 games, finished 29th. This yar we will surpass that as well. We have some quality teams on the schedule in the future.
Bottom line:
Our schedule is one of the weakest in the country. We will still be a top 15 team at years end and play in the access bowl if we go undefeated with no mwc or aac team being undefeated. Putting OSU on the schedule and finishing 12-1 does not help us. Beating them and going 13-0, would no help us. We would still get the access bowl and nothing more. That is realistically our ceiling. We can make that road harder, yes, but it still ends there. Which begs to question, why would you want to take a bus, then walk, hathen climb a mountain to get to your destination, when you could get on a helicopter and fly straight there for the same cost? (Yes, the helicopter is the easy schedule and the other is scheduling tough)
We have some obvious differences of opinion, but even so, I'm not sure, given your assertions, that my position is clear to you.
For instance, where did I say we should "schedule big?"
All I'm saying is what seemingly is obvious... our in-conference schedule, even comparing last year to this year, has taken a real hit... and that we need to somehow compensate for that. (You and I previously agreed, I believe, that we're essentially a leftover CUSA team that ended up in a Sun Belt-level group.) I've left it open to discussion how we achieve that.
We wholly agree that the CFP bowl is the holy grail for the foreseeable future. Not the actual playoff, given the constraints, but also not merely the top 25. We will be and should be measured by how often, if ever, we can claim that bowl berth.
But here's where we definitely disagree...
It's well understood by now that I've tried to objectively look at the numbers going back to our CUSA entry year, 2005. Not only is there little-to-no support for your opinion that an undefeated team arising from the caliber of conference that is the new CUSA (ie, a cut above Sun Belt, but below MAC) will be ranked ahead of a
one-loss AAC or MWC team... moreover... there's some pretty good reason to believe that a AAC or MWC team with a
two-loss margin, depending on their OOC opponents, would still beat us out of the CFP bowl. Our conference is just that weak in comparison.
But you have a saving grace. Potentially.
As you probably realize, the whole system is turned on its head this year. Whatever the BCS computers spit out before is irrelevant.
So, I have to say there's a chance you could be right. There's certainly going to be greater subjectivity by anyone's measure.
But then again, who knows (?!?).. maybe that subjectivity works for us... or maybe it works against us... after all, we have to acknowledge that there's a chance that the committee will be analytical and will care about the weakness of our schedule, and/or will have a bias for AAC and MWC schools from the start that seeps into their votes, and/or will have bowl officials in their ear talking up the schools they believe are going to travel best.
All I want is for us to be in a position to get equal consideration. If a AAC or MWC team, or even MAC team, is genuinely better, I have no complaint. Where I have complaint is the high possibility that we have a better team, but because we couldn't prove it on the field by virtue of the lack of credible competition, we get overlooked. That's why I'm not scared of an arrangement that puts us in competition with a MAC champ to get to that equal consideration... if we deserve it, we'll beat that team, after all. As fans, we do our players a disservice to twiddle our thumbs as-if we did all we could when all we actually did was tell them to "just win baby." We need to be proactive and get this thing resolved. Too late for the 2014 team, but we've got several years in front of us, and it's just a cop-out if we fail to come together and make some noise toward getting something done.
Home
Help
Members
View the memberlist
Search For Members
Login
Register