THE 2010 FLORIDA SCHEDULE: SLIGHTLY LESS LAUGHABLE
Charleston Southern and Florida International are Florida’s cross to bear this year as the possible point sinks alerting voters to the fluffy, delicious weakness of Florida’s out-of-conference games. The thirst for easy, one-way revenue in the form of a pay-for-play cupcake game does fill the coffers, but it also opens Florida up for the kind of rhetoric that worked so nastily against an undefeated Auburn team in 2004 should Florida get through the schedule unscathed and win the SEC title game.
If Florida does this, then we get to face the big green hologram of John Swofford and his assorted flying monkeys, or BCS Jambi, or the mixed mythological metaphor of your choice to represent the bag of snapping random events that is the BCS. If Florida mails in a a few along the way, those little cash-for-smash games along the way will stick out even more than Auburn’s oft-cited Citadel game in their 2004 year. Then you have the world’s angriest team facing some poor souls in the Orange or Fiesta, and no one wants to see that much blood on a single field. *
This all presumes a huge number of events: an undefeated Florida and two other undefeated BCS teams, a probable but unlikely option to pick up as a casual gambler. It has happened, though. The good news? Next year Florida’s home schedule is slightly improved, with South Florida taking the Troy slot. There’s still an D1AA team on there, because we must wean ourselves off the sugar fix slooooowly, but instead of the Fun-Dip of Charleston Southern we get the jawbreaker of Appalachian State. (App State as candy: probably won’t break your teeth, but you’ll at least you’ll worry about it.)
Miami of Ohio is on there as well, thus setting up the stage for the long anticipated thank you to the Cradle of Coaches so revered by Urban Meyer of only a forty point blowout.
*Except me me me me me.
This nightmare scenar









1
SpartanDan says:
Personally, I hope Auburn 2004 happens again soon – not necessarily to Florida (who I have absolutely nothing against), but to someone. The sooner it does, the sooner we’ll have a playoff. As always (and like the folks at Black Shoe Diaries), I blame Iowa – if they hadn’t beaten PSU last year, the mere fact that there was serious talk about whether an unbeaten PSU belongs in ahead of a one-loss SEC champ or the winner of Big XII South Tiebreaker Roulette might have convinced Delaney to quit opposing a playoff so vehemently.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:20 pm
2
Crabapple Buck says:
As long as you have rivalry games with FSU or Miami(Fl) on the non-conf schedule, you will have 3 gimmes to pay for the other non revenue sports. This is what the Title 9 regulations has done to athletic budgets. In tOSU, there are 36 varsity teams. Basketball and football pay most of the freight. To do that, they claim to need 7 home games, which means teams that don’t need a return to their place. MAC schools serve this purpose along with CUSA, Southern Conf and FCS schools, though the later should be disallowed IMO.
What I’m getting at, is that tOSU is in the same boat as Florida. One big non-con game per year (this year Southern Cal), then Navy, Toledo (in Cleveland) and New Mexico State. Sometimes the “big” game scheduled way in advance turns out to be a dud when they hire a Willingham as UW did. It kills any SOS you may have intended. We face that again in the next two years when Miami(Fl) shows up on our schedule. They were scheduled after our memorable championship game, but the schools have not been on a parallel path since that game. The current BCS system rewards not scheduling tough games OOC, so one is better than none. When I look at our old schedules from years ago and see Oregon, WfV and LSU in the same year (1987) it makes you wonder if we will ever see that again.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:22 pm
3
DevilGrad says:
Miami of Ohio is on there as well, thus setting up the stage for the long anticipated thank you to the Cradle of Coaches so revered by Urban Meyer of only a forty point blowout.
OTOH, Urban is 0-2 lifetime against Miami and may be looking for payback.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
4
CKGator says:
That jawbreaker metaphor? Brilliant.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
5
beckett929 says:
If we ever got to a playoff system that only awarded conference champions slots in the tourney, you would see a mountain of great OOC games like yesteryear… nothing to lose
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
6
Terry Tate, Office Linebacker says:
i hate that that video was only played as a cautionary tale, but I still got wood watching it.
what a fun season that was, until the end. But if it meant a playoff system, I’d wish it to happen again too…
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:01 pm
7
John says:
It’s a highly unlikely scenario. Auburn had the disadvantage of being ranked #17 in the 2004 preseason poll while USC was #1 and Oklahoma was #2. Florida will be ranked #1 in the preseason poll and as the defending National Champions will be given every benefit of the doubt by the voters.
The only teams with the status to possibly leapfrog Florida would be Texas, USC and possibly Oklahoma. Even then, they’d have to be 1995 Nebraska-like over their competition.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:05 pm
8
paul westerdawg says:
beckett929,
Wow. You really are naive. If they got an automatic qualifier to the National Title Tourney by winning their conference, there would be no incentive to play any OCC games. You’d want to be undefeated for seeding in the tourney.
Losing a quality game would cost you more than playing no one.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
9
Not You says:
@Beckett929 #6:
No, you’d see ADs around the country at powerhouse schools scheduling NOTHING BUT cupcakes for the added home games. Screw one-n-done neutral site games, screw tOSU-USC home’n'home series. There’s nothing to gain, and you’re taking a financial hit to do it…
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
10
Pat Benetar says:
2004 Auburn’s not a good comparison as the other two teams that finished the regular season undefeated that year, USC and Oklahoma, also started out consensus 1 and 2 in the preseason polls. Auburn started off around 17.
Florida’s starting out the year preseason #1 and there’s no earthly way an undefeated Florida team after an SEC Championship victory over what’s guaranteed to be another top 10 team (probably top 5) finishes the regular season #2, let alone #3.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
11
Gen. Stoopnagle says:
Why would SEC fans – especially Florida fans – want a playoff? The SEC has gotten the benefit of the doubt pretty much down the line where the MNC is concerned under the current system. The only glaring exception to this is the aforementioned Auburn team. Under the current system, the SEC is advantaged in an “all other things equal” conversation because of the perceived strength of the league. This is why Slive isn’t going for it. Well, that and it’ll be a net loss in money to SEC schools.
Now, Georgia or Auburn fan? Yeah, I can see them wanting a playoff even though 9 times out of ten the current system would be advantageous. If only UK, Vandy or South Carolina could hit a freaking field goal…
Next, I have to agree to disagree with beckett: a playoff is going to downgrade schedules big time. There would be no incentive if all you had to do was win your league to qualify. And trust me, if the NCAA starts a Div I playoff all Div I conferences will be included (…and, as a bonus, the money will be split between all the Div I conferences meaning the Sun Belt and WAC get their checks).
Since the SOS component was taken out of the BCS formula and assumed to be part of the polls, it seems clear to me that scheduling tougher OOC teams puts a team at a competitive disadvantage. It’s more important to win even if it’s only vs. the MAC or Sun Belt.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
12
ohiodawg says:
Paul Westerdawg,
If there would be a limited number of slots in the national tournament scenario you’re thinking of, wouldn’t we have to listen to seemingly legitimate complaints from one or two B12 South teams that would not get into the playoff in order to make way for VaTech or Cincinnati?
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
13
SpartanDan says:
As the last two commenters said, nothing to gain that way either, Beckett. You need at least a few at-large slots available to encourage such scheduling – that way, if one slip-up costs you the conference title you still have a leg up on the rest of the at-large contenders thanks to SOS.
I think the ideal solution is something like this: eight teams, of which at least six must be conference champions – but no individual conference is guaranteed a bid for its champion. (I am not taking Random 8-4 ACC Champion over a hypothetical 10-2 Utah team, much less 12-0 Utah.) If you don’t win your conference, you’re fighting for one of two spots. Last year the teams would have been Florida, Oklahoma, PSU, USC, Utah, Boise State, Texas, and either Alabama or Texas Tech (probably Alabama, but there’s a legitimate SOS argument for Tech when you remember that all those highly-ranked teams – Clemson, Georgia, Auburn, LSU – Bama beat early in the season turned out to be mediocre to awful, aside from Georgia who was decent but not worthy of the #1 rating they had been given).
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
14
JDav says:
Hey, at least you guys scheduled the *good* Miami…
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:15 pm
15
Crabapple Buck says:
As far as playoffs go, the NCAA is not involved in the bowl system except as the sanctioning body for eligibility. The CFA is the football wing. Since the BCS is willing to morph (read – whore) itself into whatever it needs to avoid litigation or DC interferance, I expect we are as far from a playoff as ever.
I thought SOS being dropped from the formula was a mistake. It rewarded teams to not even try to schedule any team with a pulse to pad their record. I’m looking at you Kansas and K State. If there was a mandate to be in a conference (no exceptions ND), no 1-AA on your schedule and a minimum of 2 BCS conference schools OOC, that IMO would be a start in the right direction.
It still comes down to money. And until it can get dispersed to the schools in bigger chunks than it is now, expect more of the same.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
16
JTG says:
Actually, the more likely scenario is a group of one loss teams fighting for one (or even both) slot in the Championship game. That’s when the SoS fight gets really ugly, as everyone tries to do comparative analysis on wins and losses.
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:01 pm
17
Meg says:
Why SOS was ever tossed is a supreme mystery to me. It was the only thing keeping this whole affair honest. While no formula will ever be perfect, if you pick one, state what it is at the beginning of the season, and then keep it without changing it for at least three years and then re-evaluate if it can be improved upon, then no one would be able to say they were maligned by the system. they would still say it, but they wouldn’t have much of a leg on which to stand.
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:04 pm
18
SpartanDan says:
I think the argument was that SOS was redundant because the computers were supposed to handle the math-y portion of the analysis while pollsters did their usual point-and-grunt analysis. Of course, the computers were then downweighted even further because the polls couldn’t stand the thought that the team that lost late in the season might – just *might* – have still had a better season overall than the one that lost early (the OU-LSU-USC year). The result is that more and more of the formula ends up back with the idiots with a ballot. (I’m sure there are a fair number of AP and Harris voters who actually put some thought into their ballots and aren’t slaves to things like preseason perception, but as a whole those polls have had some utterly indefensible results. And the fact that the coaches have a vote at all is beyond absurd.)
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:16 pm
19
That 5.0 Guy says:
Did Orson get Candlejack’d?
I mean, he isn’t rea
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
20
Year2 says:
Well, FSU is better than anyone Texas has in its non-conference slate.
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:32 pm
21
JD says:
South Florida Football: “Slightly Better” Than Troy
Thanks Orson. Maybe we can put that on the cover of the media guide or something.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:33 pm
22
El Guapo says:
Yeah it had more to do with #1 and #2 not losing all year than Auburn’s schedule. Citadel just gave the pollsters something that let them sleep at night.
You beat #4 LSU 10-9
Destroy #8 Tennessee 34-10
You beat #5 Georgia 24-6 (17-0 at half)
Hand Tennessee a second (of three total losses all year) loss
But you screw one goat . . .
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:03 am
23
CincySooner says:
@22… the Citadel had more to do with it than you think
… you can’t use rankings at the time the game was played. You have to go by how the teams finished in the rankings, pre-bowl.
LSU did not finish #4, Tennessee did not finish #8, and Georgia did not finish #5.
Rather they finished #11, #15, and #7 respectively.
Auburns wins: 0 top 5, 1 top 10, 3 top 15, 3 top 20, 3 top 25
Now look at the scedules of USC and Oklahoma at the end of 2004.
Going by final ranking, USC owned the scalps of #8 VaTech, #5 Cal, #19 ASU
USCs wins: 1 top 5, 2 top 10, 2 top 15, 3 top 20, 3 top 25
Oklahoma had beaten: #22 Texas Tech, #4 texas, #24 Ok St., and #17 aTm
OUs wins: 1 top 5, 1 top 10, 1 top 15, 2 top 20, 4 top 25
In the beauty pageant that was the 2004 season, blemishes like Citadel really stand out. USC and Oklahoma simply had fewer zits.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:35 am
24
Mooncricket says:
Your kidding yourself CincySooner, Auburn had 4 wins against teams with 10 wins or more that year, first time ever.
Teams USC beat, 82 wins
Teams Auburn beat, 80 wins Not including the Citadel
Teams OU beat, 74 wins (helped by that 9 win Bowling Green team)
So at an average of teams they beat on the field (D1A opponents of course)
Auburn’s averaged 6.66 wins
USC’s averaged 6.3 wins
OU’s averaged 6.16 wins
And your rankings are way off too:
Auburn’s opponents that ended the season ranked were: #7 UGA, # 10 VT, #13 Tennessee (2 wins), and #16 LSU
Auburn wins: 0 top 5, 2 Top 10, 4 top 15, and 5 top 20
USC’s opponents that ended the season ranked were: #3 Oklahoma, #9 Cal, #10 VT, and #19 Arizona St.
USC wins: 1 top 5, 3 Top 10, 3 Top 15, and 4 Top 20
Oklahoma’s opponents that ended the season ranked were: #5 Texas and #18 Texas Tech.
OU Wins: 1 Top 5, 1 Top 10, 1 Top 15, and 2 Top 20
Do your homework, no matter what you look at OU is the fat stepsister. I can’t believe you tried to pass off a 7 win aTm and a 7 win Ok. St. as quality ranked opponents…
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:59 am
25
CincySooner says:
@24… I did my homework. and the rankings I quoted are accurate for the moment in time the voters had select the BCS #1 and #2.
You are quoting rankings AFTER the bowl season is complete. I was quoting final BCS rankings, at the conclusion of the regular season, BEFORE the bowl season. It was at that point in time that voters had to make a decision between USC, OU, and Auburn.
Also, at that point in time Auburn had not yet played VT, thus it would be impossible for voters to award a win to Auburn for a game not yet played.
Forget for a moment how the bowl season went…
The bottom line is that on December 3rd, 2004 when the voters cast their ballots, USC and Oklahoma both had better football resumes than Auburn.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
26
CincySooner says:
As far as including “quality wins” I just used the Top 25 as the cut-off point for measuring total quality wins….
I figured the Top 25 was a good place to start considering it is one of the most long-lived metrics in college football dating back 40 years or so.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
27
Amos says:
Removing the SoS from the formula makes perfect sense imho (just like removing the quality wins component), the computer polls all already factor in SoS from the way they work (if you’ve ever bothered reading into how any of them work). They don’t simply rank teams with more wins above teams with less wins. Human voters also are ‘obviously’ taking into account SoS when voting (at least the ones who actually think before voting). There are also many different ways of calculating SoS (each of the computer systems do it differently), so why in the world would there be another piece of the formula doing this itself?
“Why would SEC fans – especially Florida fans – want a playoff? The SEC has gotten the benefit of the doubt pretty much down the line where the MNC is concerned under the current system.”
I’m a Florida fan and can tell you why, we don’t like lucking into these games, all SEC fans are pretty confident that they would win if a playoff was put into place. The best example I can give you of why Florida fans want it is the 2006 championship game. If UCLA had not somehow pulled a rabbit out of their ass and beaten USC in the last game of the regular season (I assure you my friends and I all had a second TV set up in order to watch that game as well), there wouldn’t have been the argument between Michigan or Florida to play tOSU, it would’ve been a USC v. tOSU game for the BCS. Florida likely would’ve gotten Notre Dame that year in the Sugar instead, and no matter how much we beat them by no one would’ve given us the time of day. Have even a 4 team playoff though and Florida could’ve shown their dominance as they got the opportunity to do against tOSU because they got lucky that UCLA won.
@CincySooner
Not that I care but, “the AP … before expanding to 25 teams in 1989.” So 20 years not 40 years. Completely agree with taking a look at the ranking pre-bowl games though.
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
28
Mooncricket says:
OK but your rankings are still faulty. Your rankings match the AP poll for Auburn opponents, but not Oklahoma’s.
Texas was #6 in the Top 25 not #4
Texas Tech was #23 not #22
aTm was #22 not #17
Ok St. was not ranked, you have them as #24
OUs wins: 0 top 5, 1 top 10, 1 top 15, 1 top 20, 3 top 25
vs.
Auburns wins: 0 top 5, 1 top 10, 3 top 15, 3 top 20, 3 top 25
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:52 pm
29
oc phil says:
Another factor in the 2004 season is that it was the second year in a row that there had been a log jam. USC was the team that got left out in 2003 and it just wasn’t going to happen to the same team two years in a row. (Of course the split MNC salvaged the 2003 situation somewhat).
@ #27 Amos: Lucking into the games is better than being left out of them.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
30
CincySooner says:
Ah… I see my mistake… I was quoting BCS rankings instead of poll ranking.
I still stand by my statement that on Dec 3, 2004 USC and OU had the better body of work.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:56 pm
31
Gabe says:
I disagree cincy sooner…Ok State and Texas Tech were not as good as Tennesse…Texas A&M was not as good Georgia…You could argue Texas was better than LSU. Auburn had a mcuh tougher schedule.
Teams Auburn beat, 80 wins Not including the Citadel
Teams OU beat, 74 wins (helped by that 9 win Bowling Green team)
So at an average of teams they beat on the field (D1A opponents of course)
Auburn’s averaged 6.66 wins
USC’s averaged 6.3 wins
OU’s averaged 6.16 wins
OU had an easy schedule
June 4th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
32
paulwesterdawg says:
@ohiodawg,
The only way to get a playoff scenario for college football that would encourage a team to schedule tough would involve a format of 12-16 teams. And that’s probably 20 years away. The first adventure down the slippery path towards playoffs would be a 4 team deal. Then 8. Then years later 12.
The problem with 8 teams. Is the structure would not be the Top 8. It isn’t the Top 8 in any college or pro sport. All playoff formats start with some concept of conference champs (regardless of relative record) and then wildcards/at-large teams.
A. First 6 teams would be Power Conference Champs
B. Next Team would be a mid-major Champ given preferential treatment to avoid a lawsuit / anti-trust case
C. Notre Dame exemption. Because EVERY other format has involved this so far. No reason to think that will discontinue.
D. At most you’d have 1 at-large team.
You’d schedule to be undefeated to get the 1 at-large birth. Not schedule tough to get the 1 at-large birth.
You need at least 4 at-large births to have any real jocking at the 1 loss level.
PWD
June 4th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
33
appfan2008 says:
Go App State…
Can’t wait to make it down there to the swamp next year!…
I hope we give you a decent game…
June 9th, 2009 at 12:35 pm