Top 6 BCS teams' opponent records

[Deaf_Bearcat]

Now I am seeing why UC is stuck with #5 BCS, but it could improve if any almost all of other top teams lose this weekend or later. I did do research on top 6 BCS teams' opponent records. I see SEMO and Miami-Oxford hurts UC's SOS substantially like Boise State had with Miami-Oxford and San Jose State. I know it is not UC's fault on playing against those weak opponents, but it is the way those opponents have up and down seasons. Here are top 6 BCS teams' opponent records:

Cincinnati - 36-44
Florida - 44-38
Texas - 43-38
Alabama - 44-38
TCU - 44-39
Boise State - 34-47

I hope BK will see this valuable lesson and improve making a better quality OOC schedule from now and on. We should not play against SEMO anymore in future. I know BK wants to get rid off Miami, but it is the traditional rivalry that UC is stuck with. Miami normally has good seasons with a little more than .500, but this year happens to be bad one. It hurts UC's chance to the BCS champ title, but any help from opponents to win over Florida, Texas, Alabama and TCU will improve UC's chance to the NC game.

[bearcatbret]

I agree with SEMO. I think that they are off of our schedule in the future. However, Fresno is typically a very good mid major, Miami typically is over .500 and when we scheduled Illinois, they were coming off of their Rose Bowl. We had a pretty good ooc schedule this year (on paper) versus some of the other big boys. I also think that we make Miami 2-1 series and that may happen since our contract with them expires in, I believe 2011 (and that is what the basketball contract is now). I would also like to trade the SEMO for another MAC team or CUSA team. Our future schedules do look very entertaining as well.

http://www.gobearcats.com/sports/m-footbl/future-schedules.html

It still pisses me off that tosu will not play us on a neutral site. I would like to see playing them in Cleveland of PBS. I understand that they will not play in a 35k seat stadium but I also know that they would not get all home games against USC or TX.

[UcatsRick]

We should never be playing Indiana St. They are horrible at 1-55 in last 5 seasons. They played Louisville this year, but why are we playing them? Skip the 1AA teams altogether I say.

That being said, I think there are many quality opponents we could be playing that won't because they don't want to risk a loss for the BCS standings. Look at Florida and Texas OOC schedules this year. They are not playing top shelf teams, but loading up on cupcakes.

[London 'Cat]

Skip the 1AA teams altogether I say.

Couldn't agree more. In fact, I think the NCAA should ban inter-divisional games to prevent teams from loading their schedules with such teams. Some teams are now playing two games each year against FCS teams. There are plenty of teams in FBS that getting a full schedule of 12 games shold be no problem. Reduce the schedule back to 11 games if you have to.

[Deaf_Bearcat]

Was it Dantonio who set up a contract to play against SEMO before BK? I hope it was not BK who did that. Yea, we need to stop playing against FCS teams.

[Chips]

The problem is, lower tier FBS schools are asking HUGE cash for games. At this point in time we can't afford to pay a whole lot to get teams to the nip.

[GoCats1994]

Not sure I understand this at all.

1) The season is not yet over. Let's not jump to any conclusions yet...

2) Should UC have not scheduled Illinois? They were fresh off their Rose Bowl appearance when the contract was signed. How can you possibly predict future performance of teams?

[Deaf_Bearcat]

Should UC have not scheduled Illinois? They were fresh off their Rose Bowl appearance when the contract was signed. How can you possibly predict future performance of teams?

This is not the problem we have. Everyone knows Illinois is having a down year. I like BK's plan to play against Illinois in a few years. Illinois will be fine. We need to pick a few better cupcakes instead of SEMO.

[Cyclone792]

A couple things here from my perspective - take it for what it's worth ...

1) If possible due to costs, I'd prefer to eliminate the FCS teams from the schedule and replace them with a team from a lower tier FBS conference such as the MAC. At the same time, I also know that sometimes the payout to get those teams to come to Cincinnati may be a factor. It's a balancing act, but I'd definitely favor eliminating the FCS altogether. Southeast Missouri State is a problem this year because they also happen to be one of the worst FCS teams out there.

2) I'm indifferent on the Miami (OH) game, and I see both points. Unfortunately this year, they happen to be an awful team and it's playing a role in the SOS.

3) We cannot fault UC for scheduling Illinois, because UC had the right idea to get a BCS team into Nippert. It's just unfortunate that Illinois may end up being a 4-5 win team rather than a 7-8 win team that we'd still beat.

4) Oregon State is doing exactly what I expected, and that's good.

5) Fresno State is an interesting wildcard here. We were ridiculed when beating them by only 8 points because they were 1-3 after losing in Nippert. However, as I pointed out to friends at the time, Fresno State had a good chance to win out after their game against UC. And fortunately, so far, so good. The more Fresno State wins, the better our win looks, and Fresno State is doing precisely what I hoped.

Overall, our formula for this year's OOC was pretty good; we just got stuck with three of our five opponents being worse than expected. I'd have eliminated the FCS game myself, but I understand some of the reasons teams schedule one of those games.

A pretty good formula for future OOCs may look like the two examples below:

Example one:
2 mid-level BCS teams (i.e. Oregon State & Illinois)
1 mid-tier FBS conference team (i.e. MWC, WAC, CUSA team)
2 low-tier FBS conference team (i.e. MAC, Sun Belt)

Example two:
1 traditional powerhouse BCS team (i.e. Florida, USC, Ohio State)
2 mid-tier FBS conference teams (MWC, WAC, CUSA)
2 low-tier FBS conference teams (MAC, Sun Belt)

In general and on average, following those examples would give you a better OOC than most other BCS teams. We just happen to be suffering from one of those rare instances this year when 3 of our 5 OOC teams are worse than expected.

[binturong07]

Cincinnati - 36-44
Florida - 44-38
Texas - 43-38
Alabama - 44-38
TCU - 44-39
Boise State - 34-47


Keep in mind that the Big East backloads its schedule. If you include the future opponents, our record improves to 54-53. TCU's changes to 56-54, and Boise State falls to 52-66.

[#41]

The problem is, lower tier FBS schools are asking HUGE cash for games. At this point in time we can't afford to pay a whole lot to get teams to the nip.

This is a very large part of the problem. UC's current stadium situation (Nippert only seating ~35k) makes it cost-prohibitive to make big payouts to get opponents to schedule away games on our schedule. It's why expanding Nippert is so important for the future growth of the program -- UC will never compete with the 100k who show up to see O$U stomp some mid-major into the ground, but they need to at least reach a level where they can pay teams to come in AND make money on the gate.

But, I disagree with this notion of schedule problems. If you look, most of the contenders above us don't really play anyone out of conference either --

FLORIDA:
- Charleston Southern
- Troy
- Florida International
- Florida State

ALABAMA:
- Virginia Tech
- Florida International
- North Texas
- Chattanooga

TEXAS:
- Louisiana Monroe
- @ Wyoming
- UTEP
- Central Florida

CINCINNATI:
- Southeast Missouri
- @Miami, OH
- Fresno State
- @Oregon State
- Illinois

Really, when you look at it, the problem continues to be the Big East. There simply aren't enough conference games, and the teams are left to their own devices finding games to add to the schedule. Eventually, you get down to the SEMOs of the world when you need 5 OOC games to round out a 12 game schedule.

When you add to that the awfulness that is Louisville and Syracuse, the W-L against continues to get hammered.

I agree with what Cyclone (esteemed contributor to many message boards that he is) said. Unless and until the BE adds another football school (to get the member schools to 8 conference games), they should be following that scheduling plan.

[UcatsRick]

I don't have a problem with playing a single game against 1AA opponent, but ISU is a terrilbe choice. Eastern KY and SEMO are not terrible. Schools like Appalachia St and Delaware should be considered for that 1AA slot on the schedule. Playing 1AA teams benefits those teams by providing them with experience against tough teams and a bigger payday than most FCS teams would get them. Many FBS teams play one FCS team each season. Many are stopping that practice though. The BCS formula is such that teams like Florida and Texas are better served by playing weaker opponents OOC because of the strength of their conference schedules. The Big East is proving to be a formidable conference again this year according to the BCS poll.

[UcatsRick]

Another idea is to play Villanova, a 1AA team. Maybe the Big East should work on moving them to FBS. Adding another football team to the BE schedule would help indeed.

[DOOGINS]

Are there any regrets from accepting $1mil. buyout on OSU game this year?

[#41]

Another idea is to play Villanova, a 1AA team. Maybe the Big East should work on moving them to FBS. Adding another football team to the BE schedule would help indeed.

I don't think Villanova has the resources to go 1-A, though. It's not a very big school (enrollment is somewhere around 6-7k, undergrad) and they play football in basically a glorified high-school stadium.

They'd need to drop serious coin to get up and running with a 1-A football team, and I don't know there's any great desire to do it. Like Georgetown (a VERY similar situation -- catholic, urban university with great hoops tradition), I don't think they aspire to anything more than March Madness.

[CincyBeerCo]

Obviously need some others to lose, but the SOS should work itself out w/ TCU and Boise in our favor.

Among top 10 BCS teams, ONLY the Bearcats have already beaten 2 ranked BCS teams and also have 2 games remaining with ranked BCS teams

[qsilvr2531]

A pretty good formula for future OOCs may look like the two examples below:

Example one:
2 mid-level BCS teams (i.e. Oregon State & Illinois)
1 mid-tier FBS conference team (i.e. MWC, WAC, CUSA team)
2 low-tier FBS conference team (i.e. MAC, Sun Belt)

Example two:
1 traditional powerhouse BCS team (i.e. Florida, USC, Ohio State)
2 mid-tier FBS conference teams (MWC, WAC, CUSA)
2 low-tier FBS conference teams (MAC, Sun Belt)

In general and on average, following those examples would give you a better OOC than most other BCS teams. We just happen to be suffering from one of those rare instances this year when 3 of our 5 OOC teams are worse than expected.

I think we need to follow something more like this whenever possible.:

1 traditional powerhouse BCS team (i.e. Florida, USC, Ohio State)
1 mid-level BCS team (i.e. Oregon State, Illinois)
1-2 mid-tier FBS conference teams (MWC, WAC, CUSA)
1-2 low-tier FBS conference teams (MAC, Sun Belt)

Unless the mid-tier FBS team is Boise St or another team that is having an extremely good year they are a drag on our schedule, and because we play one fewer BCS opponent in conference we have to have 2 OOC to match what the other BCS conference schedules look like (with the exception of the Pac-10, which consistently plays a tougher schedule than any of the other conferences because of their round-robin format).

[qsilvr2531]

Obviously need some others to lose, but the SOS should work itself out w/ TCU and Boise in our favor.

Among top 10 BCS teams, ONLY the Bearcats have already beaten 2 ranked BCS teams and also have 2 games remaining with ranked BCS teams

If we beat WVU they are very unlikely to remain ranked (unless they come back and beat Pittsburgh). We need South Florida to beat Miami and Oregon State to beat Oregon or we could very well end up with only one team in the BCS top 25 on our entire schedule at the end of the year.

[catscratchfever]

Are there any regrets from accepting $1mil. buyout on OSU game this year?

There was no $1M buyout this year or any year. UC accepted $1M from O$U to move the 2012 game from PBS to Columbus.

[CaptainProbasco]

Now I am seeing why UC is stuck with #5 BCS, but it could improve if any almost all of other top teams lose this weekend or later. I did do research on top 6 BCS teams' opponent records. I see SEMO and Miami-Oxford hurts UC's SOS substantially like Boise State had with Miami-Oxford and San Jose State. I know it is not UC's fault on playing against those weak opponents, but it is the way those opponents have up and down seasons. Here are top 6 BCS teams' opponent records:

Cincinnati - 36-44
Florida - 44-38
Texas - 43-38
Alabama - 44-38
TCU - 44-39
Boise State - 34-47



This is pretty deceptive. Is Florida's victory over 7-2 Troy better than our win over 6-2 USF? Troy's other loss was a blowout against Bowling Green. Is TCU's victory over 6-3 Texas State really that much better than ours over 1-8 SEMO? Both are D1AA schools, so the obvious answer is no.

The fact is, we've beaten more top teams than anyone else except Alabama. For a top-10 school, there should be no difference between beating the best team in the Sun Belt and the worst team in D1AA.

[Helicopter]

Couldn't agree more. In fact, I think the NCAA should ban inter-divisional games to prevent teams from loading their schedules with such teams. Some teams are now playing two games each year against FCS teams. There are plenty of teams in FBS that getting a full schedule of 12 games shold be no problem. Reduce the schedule back to 11 games if you have to.

But then you hurt the 1AA teams b/c its their big payday that pays for most of their athletics.

Bearcats should avoid cupcakes b/c we need all the firepower we can get.

The best solution to the BCS is to require (2) OOC games against other BCS teams be a mandatory requirement. This way we would have better measurements from conference to conference and it would be far less subjective.