I'm not sure how anybody could think that Oklahoma state has it improve their profile. Other than that point I couldn't disagree with anything else you just wrote.
Check Out Alabama's Future OOC Opponents
- Thread starter poconopanther
- Start date
You think a top 20 team that played a bunch of tomato cans to obtain such a ranking is a top 20 team?
Who cares how you get there. Just get there. Perception is reality. Fans love W's and the value of national exposure every week when the rankings come out is huge (particularly with recruits).
So yes, I'd rather beat a bunch of tomato cans and be ranked then to take the macho high road and play a killer schedule only to finish at 5-7. Besides, our conference schedule gives us more then enough opportunity to beat quality teams.
Cruzer
Who gives a shit, like @cruzer said, perception is reality, if it is early November and Pitt is 8-2 playing a 9-1 Miami now that game is on Saturday night not noon. The announcers for the network it is on spend the whole night gushing over how great both teams are and they get great pub. The announcers do not sit there and say “ well really Pitt beat Kent st Youngstown St and Akron” they say “ Pitt is having a great year with a chance to win 10 games
WVU fan here........after skimming over this thread it's apparent that the Backyard Brawl should be renewed on an annual basis. Let's hope that our respective AD's can make that happen.
Not so. Casual fans will still see losses in the OOC and expect it to carry over to conference and still not go. We need to rattle off several wins in a row and be in conference contention to get the casual fan. Think 2009, 2003.
This is the important point.
I get and support the argument that it's better to win than lose, so schedule automatic wins. But none of it will matter if we're going .500ish in conference and playing in the Sun Bowl because of it.
Kansas State use to try to do this. Schedule easy wins out of conference. And in the first year of the BCS they lost one game all season. The final game of the season in the Big XII Title Game. Not only did they not get an at large BCS invite, they didn't even get invited to the Cotton Bowl, which was the Big XII runner up game. Went from playing in the National Champion to playing in the Alamo Bowl, because the country wasn't fooled by the automatic wins that dominated K-State's schedule.
There’s no reason pitt needs to play the schedule they have been other than if you can lock in sure-fire sellouts. For instance, as tough of a schedule as it would be, i don’t think you turn down playing ND, WVU and/or PSU under any circumstance. If all 3 would agree to play every year, I’d sign up for that.
But, other than those few teams there’s no reason to play a good P5 who isn’t going to draw a crowd but is a tough game. Okie St is a good example.
If you can’t get Nd, WVU or psu I’m fine with one P5 and 3 MAC/Sun Belt/Cusa games.
But, other than those few teams there’s no reason to play a good P5 who isn’t going to draw a crowd but is a tough game. Okie St is a good example.
If you can’t get Nd, WVU or psu I’m fine with one P5 and 3 MAC/Sun Belt/Cusa games.
This is a Bingo.
These whacked up schedules people come here proposing belong in the trash bins.
Man up this team.
Then win the dang ACC games.
We don’t win the ACC title, with ND & all the finagling...we’re going to a dog barf bowl regardless.
Be competitive...once in a while be in position to win the ACC
And put a couple real teams on that OOC
You know better than this. The Cotton Bowl had the opportunity to select a 9-3 UT team with the Heisman trophy winner and new NCAA yardage leader at RB. They didn't bypass KSU because of their OOC schedule. They bypassed KSU because KSU has a puny fanbase and UT has the biggest, richest fanbase and is based in state, plus had an intriguing team and marquee player. Also, KSU trounced UT by 41 points earlier that season. They did NOT choose UT because they thought UT was a better team, had a better season, or because KSU scheduled light OOC. This is a really pathetic attempt.
The Cotton Bowl took UT the next year, too, despite KSU beating them (again) and being 11-1 vs. UT's 9-4. They didn't make either choice even remotely based on OOC schedule or team strength. I'm not sure of the agenda, but you know bowls don't choose on either.
It's simply not true that Kansas State wasn't punished due to their OOC schedule. The same way Wisky was last year (everybody knew going into the Big Ten Title Game that they had to win or had no hope of getting into the playoffs, even with 1 loss).
Kansas State was not regarded as a team that "deserved" to be in any big game. That's why, even as the number 3 ranked team in the BCS even after the loss, they did not receive an at-large invite. You can say, "Well, they don't travel well." Okay? Lots of teams don't travel well and receive at-large invites.
The problem with Kansas State is the country never bought into them being a legit team, because of how poorly they scheduled. So they were not able to create the kind of national clout that should have come from being a consistent Top 25 team going into that season, and then a Top 2 team in the BCS going into that Big XII title game.
Kansas State was regarded as a team that did it every year with smoke and mirrors. And you can not smoke and mirror your way into an elevated program. Without the nation buying into it, you were never going to be a sexy name, and so never be able to overcome your other structural limitations (small fan base that doesn't travel).
I just want to see wins, I don't want to see a quality team beat Pitt, after I drive 4 hours from home and fight traffic to get to the stadium.
How about getting to a point where Pitt isn’t afraid to schedule anyone coming into Heinz Field? Well, not the players or coaches, but the fans...
Millennials....God love em. They fear to Okie States of the World and run out of the Nakatomi building as fast as they can to get home for Christmas dinner...I apologize for bringing "macho" into a football discussion. It won't happen again.
Last edited:
All they're saying is ACT LIKE THE WINNERS DO, schedules EASY, AUTOMATIC WINS, just like perennial champ Alabama ALWAYS DOES.
I think you inadvertently made the counter point by using UW as an example. Look at it this way..The only reason last year's UW had any shot at playing the playoffs was because of their schedule being so awful. Even with a terrible OOC and B1G schedule; they still could have played their way into the playoffs.
Without any research, there was probably 25-30 teams that would/could have been in that position playing their schedule. If UW played Pitt's schedule the last 2 years they probably have at least 3 losses.
Without any research, there was probably 25-30 teams that would/could have been in that position playing their schedule. If UW played Pitt's schedule the last 2 years they probably have at least 3 losses.
James Franklin just said this regarding playing cupcakes over building your SOS.
"The strength of schedule is a huge part, or was supposed to be a huge part of the selection committee. That really hasn’t panned out. You wouldn’t necessarily say that after looking at it the last couple years.
“So what you have to do is — based on your institution and your program — is everything in your power to be undefeated and win your conference championship. All the other variables, you can’t control them.”
I feel dirty for saying this but he's right...
"The strength of schedule is a huge part, or was supposed to be a huge part of the selection committee. That really hasn’t panned out. You wouldn’t necessarily say that after looking at it the last couple years.
“So what you have to do is — based on your institution and your program — is everything in your power to be undefeated and win your conference championship. All the other variables, you can’t control them.”
I feel dirty for saying this but he's right...
Not really. Wisconsin is a different argument people were having last year. Most of the country believed they were really good. We can debate how good they actually were, but for the most part, it was accepted. The argument around Wisconsin was how much they "deserved" it. The idea being, being good simply isn't good enough. You had to have walked through hell on Sunday to deserve to be one of the 4.
That's not what people are arguing on our end. At least not what I'm seeing in these threads. We seem to be conceding that we aren't an upper tier team, and are probably going to lose most games against these upper tier teams. So lets stop scheduling them. We will instead schedule our way into fooling people into thinking we are in that tier. This will then bring the recruits. Which will elevate us to actually matching the perception we created with the easy schedule.
But whatever team you are talking about. Whether it be Wisconsin last year, or the K-State teams from the 90's I brought up (their one loss 99 team could only wish they ended up in the Alamo bowl), the point is the country was never fooled. They never lost track of the schedule you played, and the joke of a schedule it was. They only thing that kept these teams in the discussion wasn't that they had fooled anybody. But instead that they kept on winning when conference play started. Which allowed talk of whether these were actually elite teams that just happened to play weak schedules.
My point was if we come out of the weak out of conference schedule, and have the GTs of the conference give us a September railing, that aspect of the discussion is over. We are just the average team with the bad out of conference schedule. We have to make noise in conference, for anything we do out of conference to matter.
You are absolutely wrong. KSU finished the previous season #8. KSU opened the 1998 season #6 in the country. They beat the absolute crap out of UT during the season. Their only loss was the B12 Championship in 2OT to #10 A&M. The Cotton Bowl chose UT over KSU ONLY because of the fanbase. It had absolutely, positively nothing to do with the teams on the field or the OOC schedule. Absolutely nothing.
Then, the next year KSU (after finishing #10 and losing 2 games by a total of 6 points) opened the year #17, beat up UT in Austin, and lost 1 game to #3 Nebraska. They still were bypassed for the Cotton by 9-4 UT because...it is freaking Texas in the Cotton Bowl. Again, it had absolutely, positively nothing to do with the teams on the field or the OOC schedule. Absolutely nothing.
"Lots of teams don't travel well and receive at-large invites." Not then they didn't. Not until they put rules in place to require them to select certain rankings/finishers. Even now, it happens all the time in the conference hierarchy.
Your Wisconsin example doesn't play because this is about bowls selecting, not a committee supposedly putting in most deserving teams. The bowls don't care about that and never have.
None of your post could be further from the truth.
That doesn't jive.
You are talking about playoffs. That isn't a relevant or realistic discussion. This is about starting to win 9+ games consistently, not going 11-1 or 12-0. Pitt has to take that step first. It isn't comparable to KSU or Wisconsin of last year. It is comparable to PSU winning 9-10 games (but nothing of substance) for 20 years to build their program and relevance.
lol @ losing a total of 2 games in 2 years, and only having the Alamo Bowl and the Holiday Bowl to show for it, having nothing to do with the schedule you played.
How young are you? Were you alive for college football in the 90's? I'm not sure how you missed the K-State discussions during that time, but you apparently did.
How young are you? Were you alive for college football in the 90's? I'm not sure how you missed the K-State discussions during that time, but you apparently did.
It's all relative. There's some level you're talking about. X level of a program. We aren't at that level. So there seems to be a "fake it until you make it" argument going on. That's fine too. But you have to handle business in conference for the "fake it" aspect to have any impact. I don't care what level you are talking about. Playoffs or Tier II or Tier III or Tier IV.
You have to at least perform in conference at a level the nation expects that tier to perform at. If not, the whole smoke and mirrors show doesn't work.
If we are a .500 team in conference, the perception will be we are an average team with a bad out of conference schedule.
But at that point we would have handled business within the ACC. We would still get punished within the eyes of the country for the schedule relative to the tier, but whatever, 12-0 is 12-0.
I'm all for scheduling easy out of conference games. I haven't advocated playing a tough out of conference schedule. I just don't buy into the idea that the rest of the country will be fooled or it's going to create this ball of energy that results in huge recruiting gains. UNLESS we do exactly what you just stated: make noise in the ACC. Prove to people we are a good team that just happens to have a bad out of conference schedule.
Except Alabama always schedules 1 marque matchup OOC opener and usually at a neutral site. Pitt will never be able to do that because we are not a draw for a neutral site with our traveling fanbase. It is a completely different model with a completely different goal.
That would be extremely stupid. Hopefully that won't happen.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
I'm not sure what plausible set of circumstances would have to happen for Pitt to be the last school out of the CFP at 12-0. Maybe if the eventual final four ends up being USC, Texas, Michigan, and Alabama. But that's about it. If that was a repeated problem for 4 out of 6 years, the conversation changes but I see it as a pretty unlikely confluence of events.
Yes, and it didn't have anything to do with the schedule. They were ranked #3 and got passed over because the Cotton Bowl had the opportunity to select Texas. There were lots of discussions on whether KSU was good enough to get into the BCS, but most of that was tied to the B12 having a bad reputation outside of the traditional schools. It had nothing to do with them getting passed over for a bowl because of their OOC schedule. They were very highly regarded the entire 1998 season and they were a FG away from playing for a National Championship. However, the stupid bowl system after the auto tie-ins is almost entirely about bowls picking big, traveling fanbases, not the best teams or matchups.
If we were consistently 4-0 OOC and 4-4 in conference our perception would take a step forward (because right now it is, essentially, non-existent), but not a big one? Of course that is true, but right now we are 2-2 and 1-3 and then basically a ceiling of 4-4, so 8-4 as the average is a hell of an improvement over an average of 6-6. However, the other point is that once 8-4 goes from being your ceiling to being your floor, the perception will change. The easiest way to do that is controlling what you can most easily control: the OOC schedule. Make sure you are a clear favorite in all those games and the sell is a lot easier. Nobody (95% of the audience) delves into the 8-4 or 9-3 team's schedule because nationally they aren't a threat. It just looks like you are consistently pretty good, instead of a doormat.
Last edited:
It had everything to do with their schedule. The combination of the conference and OOC.
The Big XII was regarded as a joke. Kansas State was a team that spent the 90's beating up on weak Big XII teams, a weak out of conference schedule, and then losing to Nebraska. Until 1998.
Kansas State would get high preseason rankings because people understood that it was impossible for them to lose. Preseason rankings are usually a combination of Power Ranking v. schedule. Teddy Bridgewater Louisville might start the year off in the Top 10, but not because people thought in terms of power rankings they are actually a Top 10 team. Everybody understood they are a good team that was going to play in a joke of conference, so you got to put them in because how can they lose?
The issue surrounding Kansas State was always schedule. For anybody alive at the time, the talk around them was always: how bad their schedule was and can they beat Nebraska?
You keep wanting to tell me why the Cotton Bowl passed them over or why the ended up in the Holiday Bowl with only one loss is because they didn't travel well. So what? Lots of teams don't travel well. Miami doesn't travel well, but it didn't stop them from always getting the best bowl invites. And that's because Miami created a national following within the college football world because they had proved it. The nation bought in to them. So bowls understood that you take them, even if they aren't going to bring any fans, because they will bring a tv audience.
Kansas State never brought a national tv audience because the college football world never truly knew how to feel about them. How good were they ever really? And they rarely had chances to prove it, and when they did, they usually lost (to Nebraska). And so because they could never truly stamp out legitimacy, their small market and fan base would kill them come bowl invites.
Not true. They were highly ranked and beat Texas both years and the Cotton chose Texas because it is Texas. There is and was a vast difference in thinking they were the #1 or 2 team or whether they were a legitimate top 10 team.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
You might want to try Google or something.
Kansas State never won anything until 1998. The fact that they were passed over for Texas and Nebraska in the bowl pecking order is hardly surprising when they pooched it against the #10 A&M in the conference championship. A "never was" that blows it is hardly attractive over a blue-blood. But, the rules for BCS bowl assignments was changed after that season.
In '99 they lost to Nebraska and essentially finished second in their division and got the #3 bowl for the conference which made sense because even though they beat Texas, the Longhorns won their division. Again, rankings aside, according to the pecking order, Texas was ahead of them.
In 2000, they lost three games but won their division. Oklahoma went to the BCS title game so K-State got the other BCS birth because they effectively finished second in the conference and went to the Cotton Bowl.
In 2003, they lost to Marshall and still made the Fiesta Bowl at 11-3 because they won their division and beat Oklahoma in the Big 12 championship.
There was no mythical "buy in". There was no "bias" and OOC schedule definitely did not ever matter (see the loss to Marshall). 1998 was the only year anyone could have made that argument sound legitimate and the rules were changed to fix it and it played into their favor in later years.
So if Kansas St. was losing 2 or 3 more games a year because they scheduled up, they would be MORE likey to get better bowl games?
Not at all. As I said, I support going to an easier OOC schedule. It's always better to win than lose.
There's two issues here:
1. Should we schedule easier? People are debating that in these threads, I come down on the side that supports scheduling easier.
2. Scheduling easier creates a perception within the public. This elevates recruiting, and we eventually build the team that matches the perception. I have disagreed that that will happen.
My point is there is only one way to get an improved perception: earn it. There is no smoke and mirrors or short cut to it.
