USF turned down a 2 for 1 with Texas.....

[Guest]

READ the bottom of my post!

They're BCS schools, but you cannot look and tell me Cincinnati, Rutgers, UConn, Syracuse are BCS quality...BCS quality teams don't get smacked by Miami (OH), or lose a 20 point lead to Illinois.

Strength of schedule and perception is EVERYTHING in college football. We cannot depend on the BE teams, and other conference basement dwellers to help crutch the program. It's the same reason why no one EVER took K-State seriously, and why no one took Texas Tech seriously last year.

Well, that is why you are wrong.  If USF goes 6-1 in the Big East, we will be taken seriously.

I don't know what you mean about K-State not being taken seriously - they have played in two Fiesta Bowls and the Cotton Bowl in the last 10 years (when they had the record to be there).  Maybe you refer to the 1999 season when they ended 10-1 and went to the Holiday bowl.

Texas Tech went to the Cotton Bowl last year.

You may have some point that SOS and perception is important, but you are not using very good examples to support your argument.

[Joe]

Jim, Kansas State was shunned from the BCS TWICE as an at large because of strength of schedule. They even guarenteed 40,000 tickets sold.

1998: 11-1 ...First loss was in the BIG 12 TITLE game, They lost by 3...and went to the ALAMO BOWL. (they then lost that game) SOS was the reason

1999: 11-1...only loss to Nebraska...no BCS or Cottom despite guarenteeing 40,000 tickets to both....End up playing in the Holiday Bowl...SOS deemed weak.

2000: 11-3...Lost in Big 12 championship game...earn a Cotton Bowl bid..why..because they balled up and added Iowa to the schedule.

K-State's 1st and only BCS bid came because they upset Oklahoma in 2004...despite 2 11-1 seasons... SOS does matter.

[Bullpride08]

READ the bottom of my post!

They're BCS schools, but you cannot look and tell me Cincinnati, Rutgers, UConn, Syracuse are BCS quality...BCS quality teams don't get smacked by Miami (OH), or lose a 20 point lead to Illinois.

Strength of schedule and perception is EVERYTHING in college football. We cannot depend on the BE teams, and other conference basement dwellers to help crutch the program. It's the same reason why no one EVER took K-State seriously, and why no one took Texas Tech seriously last year.

Here's the big problem with your posts Joe, is there's zero consistency, qualitativeness or quantitativeness involved.  Syracuse was once a great program, storied, they've fallen on some hard times as of late but to state they're not BCS is ludicrous, and just proves you're trying to use you're own newby college fan opinions to formulate this theory.   They're the only BE team other than WVU that has been to a BCS caliber bowl the past 8 years.

Do you remember UF's visit to Syracuse in 1990, how about Tennessee's.  There was a time when the Carrier Dome was one of the most feared places to play.  With alum like Jim Brown, Larry Czonka, Floyd Little, and Ernie Davis it should be a shock to all why Syracuse isn't the original RB U.   I'd lay down a bet that someday soon Syracuse will rise from the ashes.  Anyone that knows college football knows Syracuse is more than Donovan McNabb, they've won a NC, they've had heisman trophy's.  Their history and winning tradition pre-dates UF, FSU, and Miami.  Smacking around Texas in the Cotton Bowl for the national championship actually.  

You're KSU analogy is also horse ****.  I'll tell you Nebraska took them seriously when they beat the crap out of them in the B12 Championship game, TAMU too.  Texas Tech isn't the same, they're not at the same level, they haven't won the big conference games.  That you trying to mold an analogy that doesn't make sense.  How about 1997 when KSU finished 11-1, beat Syracuse in the Fiesta Bowl (ohh there's that not a BCS caliber Syracuse again), and finished 5th ranked.  There only loss was to #1 ranked Nebraska.  The only real area where your KSU comparison might have held water is in 1998, they lost to TAMU in the B12 championship game and had to go to the Alamo Bowl, many felt that year their SOS kept them from a NYD outing.  They lost to Purdue that year.  The following year they went 11-1 again, only loss was to Nebraska again, and again finished a top 5 ranking with virtually no opponents for OCC.

Sorry Joe, you really should check your facts.  KSU undoubtedly had some weak OCC opponents, but from 1995-2000 their worst record was 11-3, averaging 11 wins a year, and finished all but one season in the top 10, during that span they were in three NYD Bowls- Cotton in 2000, Fiesta in 1997, Cotton in 1996, and two Holiday Bowls (which has a payout nearly equal to the Cotton).

So please Joe, show me how KSU's rather pitiful OCC hurt them?  Who didn't take them seriously?  They won two B12 Championship games, and lost two.  They beat quality opponents, and were 6-4 in bowl games, all big time opponents, since 1994.  I am missing it?  Just because YOU don't take them seriously, and they've slipped a bit mainly because Snyder is retiring, doesn't mean that's reality!  Mr. Joe doesn't take KSU seriously so now that's fact.

A program that from 1994-2000 average 11 wins, and averaged being ranked 6th in the nation, averaged selling out their stadium that entire span, went to 7 bowl games in that span, three were NYD, and won 5- in that span beating Tennessee, Washington, Syracuse (there's that non-bcs team again- only in your opinion), and BC.  A program that sent over a few dozen players to the NFL in that span.  

IF THAT's NOT BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY THEN I SURE AS HELL HOPE USF HAS A SPAN LIKE THAT WHERE WE'RE NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY.   Actually, there's no reason to take you seriously because that's simply your opinion, no shred of evidence to state otherwise.  It might have been vogue for a reporter to write that, but reality says fans, opponents, scouts, bowl committees, and the conference took them VERY SERIOUSLY.

[flsportsfan83]

 Syracuse was once a great program, storied, they've fallen on some hard times as of late but to state they're not BCS is ludicrous, and just proves you're trying to use you're own newby college fan opinions to formulate this theory.   They're the only BE team other than WVU that has been to a BCS caliber bowl the past 8 years.

PITT went a couple of years ago

[Bullpride08]

Jim, Kansas State was shunned from the BCS TWICE as an at large because of strength of schedule. They even guarenteed 40,000 tickets sold.

1998: 11-1 ...First loss was in the BIG 12 TITLE game, They lost by 3...and went to the ALAMO BOWL. (they then lost that game) SOS was the reason

1999: 11-1...only loss to Nebraska...no BCS or Cottom despite guarenteeing 40,000 tickets to both....End up playing in the Holiday Bowl...SOS deemed weak.

2000: 11-3...Lost in Big 12 championship game...earn a Cotton Bowl bid..why..because they balled up and added Iowa to the schedule.

K-State's 1st and only BCS bid came because they upset Oklahoma in 2004...despite 2 11-1 seasons... SOS does matter.

Dude you've got to be a comedian because your facts, as has been the basis throughout your argument are skewed to your advantage.

1998- I gave you the SOS argument.

1999- that's not true at all.  KSU lost to Nebraska, which kept them out of the B12 title game.  By rule, they were the #3 team, and the Holiday Bowl was the 3rd bowl tie-in.  

2000-  is that what beating the pants off a 3-9 Iowa team is 'balling up'.  In case you want to say Iowa was a good program, how about these facts 1999- 1-10, 1998- 2-9, 1997 6-5...since 1991 Hayden Frye's squads were progressively slipping.  No, you're factually wrong, they went to the B12 CHampionship game in 2000, and lost, thus they were the 2nd place team and went to the B12's #2 tie-in- Cotton Bowl.  Also, that year they played top 10 Oklahoma twice, and Nebraska so their SOS was stronger.

Where do you come up with your BS...the BCS Championship didn't start until 1998, in 1997 Bill Snyder won the B12 and went to the Fiesta Bowl.  They lost two B12 Championship games since 1998 which cost them a BCS game but put them in the Cotton Bowl- those were the tightly contested 1998 affair against TAMU- i call that the Sirr Parker game- the kid put on a one man highlight reel that night for TAMU, and in 2000, a last second FG loss  to Oklahoma, top 10 OK.

Joe you're interjecting opinion and fact.  The Fact is KSU had plenty of respect, and the oddity is USF's OCC is actually much tougher than KSU's was during that 10 year span.  I don't think they ever faced a team as difficult as even UNC in an OCC, definitely no MIami, Auburn, or UF.  SO, even that doesn't compare well to USF.

The best USF comparison in terms of scheduling is UL.  AND Given UL finished 7th ranked in 2005 with that schedule even that analogy doesn't support your argument very well.

[Bullpride08]

Refresher...Pitt was TERRIBLE at the Start of the 2001 season.

Fitzgerald (best player in the Big East) was OUT with an injury and Pitt had several other key players suspend.

This was the Pitt team that started the year 0-5!!!

You had the first victory vs an 0-5 team and you are bragging about it?

Ok.

Hey...UCF's win vs Defending SEC Champs Alabama looks better and better now!

KL

Poor KL his memory is slipping.  Actually Fitzgerald did play, he was a freshman.  It was Antonio Bryant, their senior stud receiver that was sitting with an injury, but everyone else played.  I think someone else explained how Pitt started, but i've always been under the mind set that it's usually how you finish. Pitt finished winning their last 6, and beating NCST soundly in a bowl game.

[nukebull]

nuke - I guess you don't like plural words :-)

Woolard said USF was contacted by ESPN about a game with the Longhorns, but he wasn't interested in an uneven series."

Maybe this is a plural at UCF but at my school it is not. I do not want to get into an argument over a posted article but would like to know wether this was a 1 game made for ESPN pay USF deal or an uneven series. This makes a difference to me amd my thoughts.

[Joe]

Bein,

1st - I know college football MUCH better than you. I am not a newby, I was raised around it and I don't care what insides or how greatly connected to the program you are, your calling Syracuse a great is stupid. They were solid at best. McNabb's senior year they were 8-4...thats not a great season.

Syracuse has had some great players, however outside the 60's  and 4 or 5 years in the late 80s early 90s they have never been a threat for anything. They are a solid NCAA program and that is it. They went to the Bowl Coalition game (Fiesta) In 97 because of Miami's probation and an off year for Va. Tech (they went 7-5)...they were subsequently run into the ground by K-State. The same bodes for that 98 team who was absolutley embarrased by Florida in the Orange Bowl (Miami was still on probation)...Since then they have had ONE season with more than 7 wins....So no, they are not BCS caliber at this point...they went 1-10 last season....Further Great programs don't take 13 years off from going to bowl games 1966-1979, and yes I know they have won a national title, but so has Kentucky, Mississppi, and Maryland.

Quote me where I said Syracuse is a "non BCS" team?  I believe I said "caliber." 1-10 last year...Lost to TEMPLE twice in the last 5 years...that isn't BCS caliber. Will they rise again, possibly, but it will be a few years...For now they're signing deals to play 1 and 1 road games at Miami (OH) and Wyoming...Power House!

As for K-State, don't come running with facts that NEVER happened. K-State has NEVER played Nebraska in the Big 12 Title game... Name the BCS conference teams that have finished 11-1 and not gotten a BCS bid... K-State. Going 11-1 and NOT getting a BCS bid is a big deal, especially when your last game was a 3 point loss...Thats great that the Holiday Bowl pays similar, but 11-1 and playing in the Holiday or Alamo Bowl, that's great that they finished ranked high...but what did it get them, a date on ESPN playing 8-4 Purdue? a nice Holiday Bowl match up with 7-4 Washington? THAT IS NOT A GOOD WAY FOR A 11-1 TEAM TO FINISH A SEASON. SO don't feed me they accomplished a lot crap. DO you not remember the controversy their AD created when he called the BCS crap?!

I fail to see how K-State was taken seriously by people when they were a top 5 team playing non Top 25 teams in bowl games, but I'm sure you'll spin it someway to make it look like they benefited from going 11-0 until your conference title game and then not even being in your conference's top 2 bowl games.

[Joe]

Bein,

Not going to your conference title game does not make your "by rule" regulated to 3rd place...Florida didn't go to their conference title game and was BCS in 2001, Texas in 2004 wasn't in their title game.. By your accounts Colorado was 2nd in the Big 12 this year...

and how teh HELL is my 1999 argument not true.

I know Iowa was 3-8, I know they were slipping, however, they faced a BCS program.  It was added late in 99 after the BCS did not take K-State and their AD made the BCS complaints. Iowa was heads better than Utah State, etc.

Where did I deny the BCS didn't start until 98, look at my past posts, 1997 was the Bowl Coalition. I know college football and have worked for a BCS Bowl. Don't feed me the you don't know crap BS, when I have worked in the industry. Your just doing it to try and get a leg up.

The difference between those K-State teams and our team now is we have 2 top 25 caliber teams in out conference as of now. They had Nebraska, Texas,  and Texas A&M, with Colorado and Oklahoma coming up towards the tail end of their run.

[Cubanbull]

Look at their schedules, they didnt play more than two of those teams (ranked) in each year.