Schedule, Osborne, Pete Carroll

[T_O_Bull]

 

In the Big 8 days we always had a big game prior to conference. Alabama, Auburn, Penn State, Florida State among them. Always made for a good time and especially if it fell on the same week end as mid-year St. Patrick's Day. This combined with a mid-level opponent and a couple patsys made for a good schedule and a lot of fun.

 

...T_O_B

 

[huskersurfer]

Here you go USC 2006

<el-snipperoni>

OK, so USC barely fits your criteria (and I mean, barely). What about the other top ten schools in that span?

 

I totally get that you want a tougher non-conference schedule. I want every fan in the stadium to get a free runza every game. Neither is realistic, but only one of us is going on and on about getting that change made.

 

 

What do you mean barely. Through the past NINE years USC has scheduled one team that hasn't been known to make a bowl game. Yeah they Schedule Hawaii, BYU, Colorado State, Fresno State none of them are great programs but they are all good programs that go to bowls. They just had Idaho on last year because someone backed out of their game. Once again we don't have to play the best of every division just teams that have good programs and make bowl games on a consistant basis.

 

These teams might not have been good teams but as many have pointed out on this board you don't know how good a team is going to be down the road four or five years after teams are scheduled. The point is there are no Western Michigan's, No Louisiana Lafayette, no san jose st, no maine, no nicholls state, Utah State, McNeese State. How many of these teams did you know what their mascot was before we played. I mean USC plays teams that get on TV because they have good programs. Have you ever seen USC play a Div II school like we have.

 

Plus, Pete Carroll has gone out and said that they will schedule anyone at anytime they want to play the big dogs of the nation. That hasn't happened because of the attitude of other schools. (By the way I live in LA and USC tries to schedule top programs every year. They have tried to get games with Florida, LSU, OKL, Tex the papers have talked about it.)

 

I am not going to go through programs and look for another one that schedules good teams on a consitant basis because the fact is I don't think there is another program that does it. Like I said before if you are content at being a team that powder puffs its schedule, and not play legitimate bowl contenders that is fine. But, the fact is USC is doing a better job than we are and I want Nebraska to get better at scheduling. If you write a letter you don't even have to go into detail all it would take is something like.

dear. dr. osborne I feel that our out of conference schedule has been good. I believe that we could do better. I don't like playing Div II schools, and teams that never go to Bowl games (Give Examples Maine, San Jose State Western Mich).(and maybe point out the fact the next four years 1 out of 4 of the games out of conference looks like a nonbowl contender) One thing I hope you can bring to this program as the new A.D. is a more respectable out of conference schedule. thank you for your consideration sign.

[Cy the Cyclone]

A little history on your idea of a Nebraska/Iowa series.

 

Nebraska has played Iowa 6 times during non-conference schedule games. Apparently they had a four year deal 1979-1982 and another two year contract for 1999-2000.

 

Nebraska came out 5-1 during that series outscoring Iowa 214 to 58.

The funniest thing about that last series was that Iowa was actually pretty decent in 2002-2004, and probably would have trounced us if we had played.

 

Timing is everything!

 

They were only "good" by Big 10 standards...any Big 12 school would have trounced them.

[Cy the Cyclone]

Oops...double post

[huskerbatt52]

I'd love to us play Iowa every year. That would be a fun rivalry.

[REDSTEEL]

A little history on your idea of a Nebraska/Iowa series.

 

Nebraska has played Iowa 6 times during non-conference schedule games. Apparently they had a four year deal 1979-1982 and another two year contract for 1999-2000.

 

Nebraska came out 5-1 during that series outscoring Iowa 214 to 58.

The funniest thing about that last series was that Iowa was actually pretty decent in 2002-2004, and probably would have trounced us if we had played.

 

Timing is everything!

 

You are never supposed to admit this type of stuff and heaven forbid never ever put that down in writing.

 

Just claim Nebraska better then them and their just jealous, and once in awhile add GO BIG RED.

[HUSKER 37]

 

I guess this is why I feel it was a mistake when the BCS stopped taking SOS (Strength Of Schedule) into consideration...Bringing it back would probably help things. (That, or not counting pre-season games like the NFL).

 

 

 

Could you clarify? As far as I know, the computer rankings are based on strength of schedule, the win-loss records of the teams you play, and the win-loss records of the teams those teams have played. One of the reasons I don't mind the BCS so much is the objective way in which it measures strength of schedule. The reason Misery and WV are ahead of Ohio St. is SOS. Plus, those who vote in the polls take SOS into account.

 

I could be remembering it wrong (mistaking SOS with margin of victory), but I vaguely remember one or two of the computer rankings that were more hevily weighted on SOS were dropped from the service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowl_Championship_Series

 

2002-03 formula

The BCS continued to purge ranking systems which included margin of victory, causing the removal of the Matthews and Rothman ratings. Sagarin provided a BCS-specific formula that did not include margin of victory, and the New York Times index returned in a form without margin of victory considerations. In addition, a new computer ranking, the Wesley Colley Matrix, was added. [5] The lowest ranking was dropped and the remaining six averaged.

 

In addition, the quality win component was modified such that the deduction for beating the #1 team in the BCS would be 1.0, declining by 0.1 increments until beating the 10th ranked team at 0.1. Teams on probation were not included in the BCS standings, but quality win points were given to teams who beat teams on probation as if they were ranked accordingly in the BCS.

 

2004-05 formula

In response to the controversy created by the voters in the AP poll naming USC as the No. 1 ranked team at the end of the year, [1] the formula was completely rewritten. Supporters of USC and the media in general criticized the fact that human polls were not weighted more heavily than computer rankings and this criticism led to the new math.

 

AP Poll: A team's AP Poll number is the percentage of the possible points it could receive in the poll. As an example, in the final regular-season poll of 2003, LSU received a total of 1,580 out of a possible 1,625 points from the voters, giving them an AP Poll percentage of 97.2.

Coaches' Poll: This is calculated in the same manner as the AP Poll number. For LSU, their final regular-season number in this poll would have been 99.4 (1,516 out of 1,525 possible points).

Computer Average: The BCS used six ranking systems, with the New York Times opting not to participate. In the calculation, the highest and lowest ranking for each team are dropped. Then, it will give a team 25 points for a Number 1 ranking in an individual system, 24 points for Number 2, and so on down to 1 point. Each team's set of numbers is then added, conveniently making the number compatible with the percentages from the two polls. To address concerns about loss of the schedule strength factor, the description of the computer rankings explicitly included schedule strength as a consideration. For USC, dropping their highest and lowest computer rankings would have left them with four third-place finishes, worth 23 points each for a total of 92, while LSU would have had four second-place finishes for a total of 96. The BCS averaged the three numbers obtained above, divided the result by 100, and converted it to a decimal fraction. This system placed twice as much emphasis on human polls than computer rankings, and made it highly unlikely that the top team in both human polls would be denied a place in the title game, as it happened in 2003-04.

 

 

My brain hurts..

Maybe it wasn't totally eliminated, but it seems to have been reduced.

I can see both sides of wanting to adjust the gravity of the SOS rankings.

Teams should be rewarded for playing tougher opponents, but not to the point that you eliminate the better team just for scheduling an opponent 5 years ago that happened to have a bad year..(You can only play the ones on your schedule)...Hopefully, the Human poll(s) take care of that.

 

 

Still..Anything to help keep us away from a playoff and making Division 1 Football seasons as forgettable as the NFL..

 

I'm pretty much all for it.

[melscott62]

Here you go USC 2006

 

Date Opponent Result/Time Record/Tickets TV

September 2 at Arkansas W 50-14 1-0 (0-0)

September 16 No. 19 Nebraska W 28-10 2-0 (0-0)

September 23 at Arizona W 20-3 3-0 (1-0)

September 30 at Washington State W 28-22 4-0 (2-0)

October 7 Washington W 26-20 5-0 (3-0)

October 14 Arizona State W 28-21 6-0 (4-0)

October 28 at Oregon State L 33-31 6-1 (4-1)

November 4 at Stanford W 42-0 7-1 (5-1)

November 11 No. 21 Oregon W 35-10 8-1 (6-1)

November 18 No. 17 California W 23-9 9-1 (7-1)

November 25 No. 6 Notre Dame W 44-24 10-1 (7-1)

December 2 at UCLA L 13-9 10-2 (7-2)

January 1 vs No. 8 Michigan W 32-18 11-2 (7-2)

 

3 Out of Conference games all with Good Teams

 

USC 2002

September 2 No. 22 Auburn W 24-17 1-0 (0-0)

September 14 at No. 14 Colorado W 40-3 2-0 (0-0)

September 21 at No. 6 Kansas State L 27-20 2-1 (0-0)

September 28 Oregon State W 22-0 3-1 (1-0)

October 5 at No. 7 Washington State L 30-27 3-2 (1-1)

October 12 California W 30-28 4-2 (2-1)

October 19 Washington W 41-21 5-2 (3-1)

October 26 at Oregon W 44-33 6-2 (4-1)

November 9 at Stanford W 49-17 7-2 (5-1)

November 16 Arizona State W 34-13 8-2 (6-1)

November 23 at UCLA W 52-21 9-2 (7-1)

November 30 No. 12 Notre Dame W 44-13 10-2 (7-1)

January 2 vs No. 3 Iowa W 38-17 11-2 (7-1)

 

4 out of conference games all from big conferences and all ranked

 

USC 2004

at Virginia Tech W 24-13 1-0 (0-0)

September 11 Colorado State W 49-0 2-0 (0-0)

September 18 at Brigham Young W 42-10 3-0 (0-0)

September 25 at Stanford W 31-28 4-0 (1-0)

October 9 No. 7 California W 23-17 5-0 (2-0)

October 16 No. 19 Arizona State W 45-7 6-0 (3-0)

October 23 Washington W 38-0 7-0 (4-0)

October 30 at Washington State W 42-12 8-0 (5-0)

November 6 at Oregon State W 28-20 9-0 (6-0)

November 13 Arizona W 49-9 10-0 (7-0)

November 27 Notre Dame W 41-10 11-0 (7-0)

December 4 at UCLA W 29-24 12-0 (8-0)

January 4 vs No. 3 Oklahoma W 55-19 13-0 (8-0)

 

USC 2005

 

September 3 at Hawaii W 63-17 1-0 (0-0)

September 17 Arkansas W 70-17 2-0 (0-0)

September 24 at No. 24 Oregon W 45-13 3-0 (1-0)

October 1 at No. 14 Arizona State W 38-28 4-0 (2-0)

October 8 Arizona W 42-21 5-0 (3-0)

October 15 at No. 9 Notre Dame W 34-31 6-0 (3-0) NBC

October 22 at Washington W 51-24 7-0 (4-0)

October 29 Washington State W 55-13 8-0 (5-0)

November 5 Stanford W 51-21 9-0 (6-0) TBS

November 12 at California W 35-10 10-0 (7-0)

November 19 No. 16 Fresno State W 50-42 11-0 (7-0)

December 3 No. 11 UCLA W 66-19 12-0 (8-0)

January 4 vs No. 1 Texas L 41-38 12-1 (8-0)

 

 

USC This Year

All three ended up easy games. But only Idaho was scheduled to be a cupcake. Nebraska and Notre Dame just ended up that way. They scheduled Nebraska when we were a 9 win team and as you know Notre Dame is always on their schedule and they generally have a good team.

 

 

September 1 Idaho W 38-10 1-0 (0-0)

September 15 at No. 14 Nebraska W 49-31 2-0 (0-0)

September 22 Washington State W 47-14 3-0 (1-0)

September 29 at Washington W 27-24 4-0 (2-0)

October 6 Stanford L 24-23 4-1 (2-1)

October 13 Arizona W 20-13 5-1 (3-1)

October 20 at Notre Dame W 38-0 6-1 (3-1) NBC

October 27 at No. 5 Oregon L 24-17 6-2 (3-2)

November 3 Oregon State W 24-3 7-2 (4-2)

November 10 at No. 24 California W 24-17 8-2 (5-2)

November 22 at No. 6 Arizona State W 44-24 9-2 (6-2)

December 1 UCLA 4:30 PM ET Tickets

 

 

 

And The Point of Scheduling out of major conferences is that you have a better chance of playing a ranked team when they actually play. We have Tennesee scheduled for 2017 that is ten years away. Who knows where each program is going to be at by then. But, there are better odds of Tennesse being respectable than Western Michigan.

 

 

I am sorry but I am not the type of person that would like to take the easy road to the National Title. Some one already did that remembert K-State.

 

If Missouri Loses what is everyone saying about Ohio State this year. They are going to play for the National Title but everyone outside of Ohio is calling BS because they didn't play anyone.

 

When Nebraska wins their next National Title I don't want questions.

 

This just shows the difference in programs. Pete Carroll even said that he wants every game to be a championship type game REAL Champions play anybody and that is the type of attitude that he has developed at USC.

 

I know that there are things for people to throw in cup cake games like teams backing out and what not but when you are playing four out of conference games asking for 2 good matchups isn't too much to ask for.

 

keep in mind that they are not in the big 12. most years the big 12 is a better conference and it has a title game.

[Cy the Cyclone]

 

What do you mean barely. Through the past NINE years USC has scheduled one team that hasn't been known to make a bowl game. Yeah they Schedule Hawaii, BYU, Colorado State, Fresno State none of them are great programs but they are all good programs that go to bowls. They just had Idaho on last year because someone backed out of their game. Once again we don't have to play the best of every division just teams that have good programs and make bowl games on a consistant basis.

 

 

Goody for USC...maybe someday they can schedule some really tough games like...oh...Troy (who played Arkansas, Florida and Oklahoma State in their first three weeks this year and have managed to go through the year 9-3, losing only to ranked BCS teams) or what about Western Michigan (who opened play with West Virginia, Indiana and Missouri). Sure, they lost to all three teams but I didn't see USC putting any of these guys on their schedule. So, what makes USC a shining example of anything? They are the top team in a weak conference...they can get recruits because they are in LA. They get lots of media coverage because they are so close to where the media coverage originates from. They can schedule harder non-conference games because the teams IN the conference are so pathetic that playing a couple of hard ones in the pre-season isn't going to hurt your bowl chances. Take USC and put it in Wyoming then lets hear you shooting your mouth off about how great your recruiting is. While we're at it, how many ranked teams has USC played this year? As many as Nebraska has? I don't think so. Nebraksa has more ranked teams in it's conference than USC has played this year. If you ask me...those "creampuff" opponents like Troy, Akron or East Carolina have a lot more balls than USC does.

 

Did I mention I absolutely can't stand USC?