Notre Dame has been obliterated in their two marquee match-ups this year. First, Michigan came into South Bend and erased any legitimate thoughts of Notre Dame as a national contender. Recently, Notre Dame travelled to LA and was sent packing back to Indiana by the USC Trojans. Ten and two might not sound bad, but it hasn't been a good year for Weis' boys and it's not going to get any better if they play in a BCS bowl.
Unfortunately for Notre Dame, their reputation as a big-time college football program is going to get them in over their heads one more time this year. Notre Dame can fight it out with the Georgia Tech's and 2nd tier teams from major conferences (Penn State, UCLA, Michigan State, etc.). The Irish won some games handily that they were supposed to win (Stanford, Navy, Army, Air Force, etc.). They had two shots at top teams and didn't show that they can compete. Does anyone think the third time is actually going to be the charm? ESPN's Ivan Maisel is predicting a Notre Dame v. Michigan rematch in the Rose Bowl. People don't want to see Michigan v. Ohio State but they do want to see Notre Dame v. Michigan? Right.
Shifting gears a bit, I'm all for Notre Dame playing the nation's elite. I'd like to see it more. But, if they want a shot at a BCS bowl, make them earn it on the field. Boise State is undefeated. Give them a shot at somebody. LSU hasn't been blown out like Notre Dame has. In the years to come, Notre Dame should give themselves more chances to beat top teams during the regular season. Yeah, you read that right, Notre Dame should play a murderous schedule.
Notre Dame, Navy, Army, Temple. What do those four teams have in common? They're all independents. Navy is 8-3 so far, but their big wins are over Air Force and UConn. Notre Dame is the only nationally relevant independent and they should take advantage of that. The Fighting Irish have 12 chances during the regular season to play in huge match-ups like Michigan v. Notre Dame and Notre Dame v. USC. They should use it to their advantage and use it to change the way people look at college football.
What if, in the not too distant future, Notre Dame scheduled Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Texas, Florida, Louisville, Oklahoma, LSU, Miami, Penn State, MIchigan State, and Virginia Tech? What if they lost to Ohio State, USC, Texas and Oklahoma (they'd have to lose to my Sooners)? They'd be 8-4 with wins over Michigan, Florida, Louisville, LSU, Miami, Penn State, Michigan State, and Va Tech. Maybe Miami and Michigan State would be down, like this year. Or, maybe a couple different teams would be having down years. When you schedule games, you don't know how good your opponent is going to be. You don't know how good you will be. Miami and Florida State were top 15 teams early this year ... they both finished 6-6. However, you have a pretty good idea, especially if you schedule marquee teams.
I'll touch on why this would help college football, especially if there aren't any other changes to the system in the near future. However, I'll try to give Notre Dame some incentive here. What games get the most publicity? Is it Notre Dame v. Air Force or Notre Dame v. USC? It's the latter. A loaded schedule would have to be good for recruiting. If you don't think players want to be in the spotlight every Saturday there is something wrong with you. Notre Dame gets credit if they produce and by adding more spotlight games they'd have more chances to score big wins. Plus, Weis could defer some of the focus off a few individual games (this year's big games being Michigan and USC) because all the games would be "big" match-ups.
College football benefits because voters would have to look at more than records. A 6-6 Irish team might merit a higher ranking than a 10-2 Wake Forest, Washington, West Virginia or Wisconsin. Maybe they wouldn't, but the voters would have to dig a little deeper than I think they do now if they want to get it right. Hopefully, it would spill over to other teams and we'd have more Texas v. Ohio State, Oklahoma v. Oregon, USC v. Arkansas, etc. and less Texas v. North Texas, Texas v. Sam Houston State, Texas v. Rice, etc. Because, if Notre Dame can still be in the national title picture with 3 losses, maybe USC, Florida, and Boston College could lose a couple games and still be in the running as long as they had enough high-quality wins (and high-quality losses). Additionally, if Notre Dame played top teams from across the nation, they could help serve as a measuring stick for comparisons of top teams and major conferences. This would help the computers and voters figure out how to rank the teams, right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You had me until "and less ... Texas v. Rice..." Clearly you are confused, as Rice is a bowl team. The whole point of your argument is that top bowl-worthy teams should face-off in the regular season. Well Rice is headed to the Naw'lins Bowl after a victorious season and does not deserve your scoff.
Furthermore, you, like Texas, clearly do not understand the deep rivalry that exists between Rice and Texas. OK, I admit that rivalry doesn't extend beyond college baseball, but Rice did come close to beating Texas in '97 (had 4 throws within the redzone at the end of the game to tie it, but couldn't complete a frickin' pass) and beat them a few years before that.
Plus, how is a school like Rice (or Boise State) ever get a chance to prove themselves during the regular season if Texas is too busy playing Norte Dame to bother playing Rice?
Furthermore, lets actually look at Rice's season:
They lost the 1st game against Houston by 1 (their 1st game under a new head coach). Houston is generally in the top 30 teams in the nation in the polls (just missing the top 25 in ESPN, USA, and AP polls.
They lost the 2nd game of the season by 10 to UCLA who is 25th in BCS.
They got the sh!t kicked out of them by Texas, a top 20 program, in game 3.
They got the sh!t kicked out of them by Florida State, usually a very good team in a down year, in game 4.
They go on to win 7 of their last 8, including the last 6 games. Sure, none of the wins were against top teams. But lets say the team jelled under their new head coach a little earlier, avoiding the poor start. Clearly they could have won the Houston game. If they had played 3 other crappy teams instead of UCLA, Texas, and Florida State (who were all too busy playing Norte Dame), then Rice has a chance of going 11-1 because they didn't face any real competition.
As is, the opportunity to play against some of the better teams in the nation gave the cream a chance to rise and the rice a chance to become water-logged and sink to the bottom (or something).
Perhaps I was a little hasty in lumping Rice in with 1-AA SHSU and the Mean Green of North Texas. But, I think my point is valid ... I don't believe Rice deserved a shot at Texas this year. The upcoming bowl is Rice's first since 1961.
You ask "how is a school like Rice (or Boise State) ever get a chance to prove themselves during the regular season ... ?" You lost me when you lumped Boise State and Rice together. Boise State has been a mid-major power for years. Rice ... hasn't. Like Gonzaga in college basketball, I think a track record entitles you to play better teams. Boise State beat Oregon State 42-14, but the Beavers were probably the best team the Broncos played. Oregon State is, traditionally, a middle of the road Pac-10 team who finished 3rd in the conference this year. This next year, I'd love to see Rice play Texas A&M, Oklahoma State, Arkansas ... maybe even Texas. But, if they get wiped away again, improve the program before the next shot.
Rivalries are great, but you need to adapt. Let Rice play Texas at baseball ... that's fair. There aren't enough games on the schedule for Texas to play old SWC foes Rice, SMU, Houston, TCU and Arkansas. I know Arkansas v. Texas is a big rivalry and it should be played as long as the teams are a good match, and the same can be said for any other rivalry game. The problem is when one team becomes a whipping boy for the other for multiple years. There is enough dead wood in each conference, the top teams don't need to schedule dead wood in their non-conference play, if they can help it.
Plus, I believe the issue in the Texas v. Rice debate isn't necessarily that Texas played Rice. That may seem a little confusing, but I think the problem is that Rice was the 2nd best team on Texas' non-conference schedule. North Texas finished 7th (out of 8) in the Sun Belt. The winner of the Sun Belt? That was the same Middle Tennessee State that Oklahoma destroyed. I'm told Sam Houston State has a good ag program, but they are a 1-AA team. What are they doing on a field with one of the most talented D-1 teams in the nation? If Rice is the worst team Texas plays in their non-conference schedule, perfect. But, they shouldn't be #2.
Well, I certainly agree that Rice should be the worst or 2nd worst team that plays Texas until they prove themselves as better. However, they have quite a history of playing each, even if Rice generally gets crushed. Nothing wrong with having your annual whipping-boy, the problem (as you so aptly point out) is when you schedule 2-4 whipping-boys.
Also, I just don't pay much attention to college football (hey, I went to Rice when they sucked, so forgive me), so I get a mulligan on putting Rice and Boise State in the same sentence!
Fun Rice trivia for the day - Rice Stadium can hold more fans then the cumulative number of students, faculty, and staff that have attended Rice during its history! Or at least that was the urban legend when I was there...
Post a Comment