If Toledo beats a 6-6 arizona team on the road. 9-3 wyoming in the road. An 8-4 cinci team at home, and run the MAC. With wins against bowl eligible WMU, and NIU. They could be in the top 16. First we need to win every game which is already super hard to do, we would have to beat presumable 11/12 win Ohio in the MAC ship, and hope those 3 OOC teams are at least bowl eligible. If that happens Toledo should be ranked fairly high.

A few other teams in the MAC have the same arguments as Toledo, and maybe even tougher schedule but I think ours is just tough enough where games are winnable also. Not trying to knock CMU but 2-2 is optimistic with that OOC. Toledo can actually do the dirty and go 13-0.

(04-10-2012 11:27 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  Toledo can actually do the dirty and go 13-0.

11.14.2012

(04-10-2012 11:55 PM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  

(04-10-2012 11:27 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  Toledo can actually do the dirty and go 13-0.

11.14.2012

I said can, not will. I respect NIU and I know they will be tough again this year. I will go out on a limb and say NIU won't be as good as they were last year tho.

NIU has an even better shot than Toledo to run the table. All they have to do is get by a probably under 4 win Kansas team and beat a 7 win Iowa team on a neutral field. But those wouldn't award style points, and a lot of people would point at their schedule as the reason for success. But it's still a better SOS than OU.

(04-10-2012 09:14 AM)EA3 Wrote:  From their point of view:

Why would they award a BCS at large bid to a MAC team that plays in the second to last rated league in the country? Whether or not we agree with that is irrelevant. The national perception paints us ahead of only the Sun Belt. Can, and will, that change with all the realignment and our schools putting a better product on the field? Absolutely.

Why would they award a BCS at large bid to a MAC team that only conquered one top 25 team, if that, all year?

Why would they award a BCS at large bid to a MAC team that draws 1/3 of the home crowd of most BCS schools? Do you really think a MAC team is going to travel well for football? How many butts can we put in the seat for the BCS bowl? The answer is...a fraction of what a BCS team can...and I'm sorry, but the BCS is all about money.

Again, the BCS would choose a 9-3 or 10-2 mega power from the SEC, Big 12, or Big 10 before they even considered a MAC team.

It's wishful thinking, but the stars will never align on this one. It's more likely that one of us wins a 600+ Mega Millions jackpot than our favorite MAC team getting an at large BCS bid.

You keep saying that like there is a choice. Currently there isn't they have to take the highest ranking non-AQ champ under certain criteria and that criteria is feasible with an undefeated MAC team. That is one reason why some AQ conferences want to eliminate the BCS since it currently rewards non-AQ teams with a REAL bowl game rather than the crap we normally get. Utah, TCU, Boise, and Hawaii would never have been taken by the BCS bowls unless forced to case in point Boise last year. That team was higher ranked and better than some of the non-AQs that have been to a BCS bowl but since they were not forced to take them they managed to be kept out. This is why it is important to get it done now before the opportunity closes.

(04-11-2012 06:29 AM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(04-10-2012 09:14 AM)EA3 Wrote:  From their point of view:

Why would they award a BCS at large bid to a MAC team that plays in the second to last rated league in the country? Whether or not we agree with that is irrelevant. The national perception paints us ahead of only the Sun Belt. Can, and will, that change with all the realignment and our schools putting a better product on the field? Absolutely.

Why would they award a BCS at large bid to a MAC team that only conquered one top 25 team, if that, all year?

Why would they award a BCS at large bid to a MAC team that draws 1/3 of the home crowd of most BCS schools? Do you really think a MAC team is going to travel well for football? How many butts can we put in the seat for the BCS bowl? The answer is...a fraction of what a BCS team can...and I'm sorry, but the BCS is all about money.

Again, the BCS would choose a 9-3 or 10-2 mega power from the SEC, Big 12, or Big 10 before they even considered a MAC team.

It's wishful thinking, but the stars will never align on this one. It's more likely that one of us wins a 600+ Mega Millions jackpot than our favorite MAC team getting an at large BCS bid.

You keep saying that like there is a choice. Currently there isn't they have to take the highest ranking non-AQ champ under certain criteria and that criteria is feasible with an undefeated MAC team. That is one reason why some AQ conferences want to eliminate the BCS since it currently rewards non-AQ teams with a REAL bowl game rather than the crap we normally get. Utah, TCU, Boise, and Hawaii would never have been taken by the BCS bowls unless forced to case in point Boise last year. That team was higher ranked and better than some of the non-AQs that have been to a BCS bowl but since they were not forced to take them they managed to be kept out. This is why it is important to get it done now before the opportunity closes.

Fair enough.

How likely is it that one of our teams gets in the top 16 in the BCS rankings? We have a better chance of it snowing in Key West. The only way this changes, is if a minimum of 3 of our teams get really good and garner some top 25 votes AND our non conference schedules get tougher.

(04-11-2012 08:22 AM)EA3 Wrote:  

(04-11-2012 06:29 AM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(04-10-2012 09:14 AM)EA3 Wrote:  From their point of view:

Why would they award a BCS at large bid to a MAC team that plays in the second to last rated league in the country? Whether or not we agree with that is irrelevant. The national perception paints us ahead of only the Sun Belt. Can, and will, that change with all the realignment and our schools putting a better product on the field? Absolutely.

Why would they award a BCS at large bid to a MAC team that only conquered one top 25 team, if that, all year?

Why would they award a BCS at large bid to a MAC team that draws 1/3 of the home crowd of most BCS schools? Do you really think a MAC team is going to travel well for football? How many butts can we put in the seat for the BCS bowl? The answer is...a fraction of what a BCS team can...and I'm sorry, but the BCS is all about money.

Again, the BCS would choose a 9-3 or 10-2 mega power from the SEC, Big 12, or Big 10 before they even considered a MAC team.

It's wishful thinking, but the stars will never align on this one. It's more likely that one of us wins a 600+ Mega Millions jackpot than our favorite MAC team getting an at large BCS bid.

You keep saying that like there is a choice. Currently there isn't they have to take the highest ranking non-AQ champ under certain criteria and that criteria is feasible with an undefeated MAC team. That is one reason why some AQ conferences want to eliminate the BCS since it currently rewards non-AQ teams with a REAL bowl game rather than the crap we normally get. Utah, TCU, Boise, and Hawaii would never have been taken by the BCS bowls unless forced to case in point Boise last year. That team was higher ranked and better than some of the non-AQs that have been to a BCS bowl but since they were not forced to take them they managed to be kept out. This is why it is important to get it done now before the opportunity closes.

Fair enough.

How likely is it that one of our teams gets in the top 16 in the BCS rankings? We have a better chance of it snowing in Key West. The only way this changes, is if a minimum of 3 of our teams get really good and garner some top 25 votes AND our non conference schedules get tougher.

It's not likely that one of our teams will go undefeated, we've establishes this..... But if one does, we could have a MAC team in a BCS bowl. I think half of the teams in the conference have a good enough schedule to where if they went undefeated it would award a top 16 spot.

(04-11-2012 08:51 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(04-11-2012 08:22 AM)EA3 Wrote:  

(04-11-2012 06:29 AM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(04-10-2012 09:14 AM)EA3 Wrote:  From their point of view:

Why would they award a BCS at large bid to a MAC team that plays in the second to last rated league in the country? Whether or not we agree with that is irrelevant. The national perception paints us ahead of only the Sun Belt. Can, and will, that change with all the realignment and our schools putting a better product on the field? Absolutely.

Why would they award a BCS at large bid to a MAC team that only conquered one top 25 team, if that, all year?

Why would they award a BCS at large bid to a MAC team that draws 1/3 of the home crowd of most BCS schools? Do you really think a MAC team is going to travel well for football? How many butts can we put in the seat for the BCS bowl? The answer is...a fraction of what a BCS team can...and I'm sorry, but the BCS is all about money.

Again, the BCS would choose a 9-3 or 10-2 mega power from the SEC, Big 12, or Big 10 before they even considered a MAC team.

It's wishful thinking, but the stars will never align on this one. It's more likely that one of us wins a 600+ Mega Millions jackpot than our favorite MAC team getting an at large BCS bid.

You keep saying that like there is a choice. Currently there isn't they have to take the highest ranking non-AQ champ under certain criteria and that criteria is feasible with an undefeated MAC team. That is one reason why some AQ conferences want to eliminate the BCS since it currently rewards non-AQ teams with a REAL bowl game rather than the crap we normally get. Utah, TCU, Boise, and Hawaii would never have been taken by the BCS bowls unless forced to case in point Boise last year. That team was higher ranked and better than some of the non-AQs that have been to a BCS bowl but since they were not forced to take them they managed to be kept out. This is why it is important to get it done now before the opportunity closes.

Fair enough.

How likely is it that one of our teams gets in the top 16 in the BCS rankings? We have a better chance of it snowing in Key West. The only way this changes, is if a minimum of 3 of our teams get really good and garner some top 25 votes AND our non conference schedules get tougher.

It's not likely that one of our teams will go undefeated, we've establishes this..... But if one does, we could have a MAC team in a BCS bowl. I think half of the teams in the conference have a good enough schedule to where if they went undefeated it would award a top 16 spot.

IF...and we've already established that it's extremely unlikely that one of us will go undefeated...how on earth would we get into the top 16 of the BCS formula with our best wins being the following:

WMU-Minnesota, Illinois, UCONN
Toledo-Arizona, Wyoming, Cincy
NIU-Kansas, Iowa, Army
Ohio-Penn St, New Mexico St, Marshall

(assuming everyone agrees those are the four best teams heading into 2012 play)

There's a darn good chance that none of those teams end up ranked in the top 25. Penn St finished the year at #22 in the BCS. How in the H-E-double hockey sticks are any of us going to crack the top 16 without a win against a top 25 team? Yeah, we might get as high as #20 in the polls...but the BCS standings are a whole different animal.

Here is a better example. Everyone wants to talk about how Boise could have done it last year if they had beaten TCU. Well sure they would have been in the BCS IF they had beaten TCU! Look at their flipping schedule! Here is a list of teams they played who went bowling last year:

W #19 Georgia
W Toledo
W Tulsa
W Nevada
W Air Force
L TCU
W San Diego St
W Wyoming

8 of the 12 teams they played went bowling...AND they beat 7 of them with a top 25 win over a solid SEC team in Georgia.

Let's say a team like NIU plays and beats 4 other MAC teams that end up bowling...let's say Ohio, Toledo, WMU and Ball St. They would still need to set up 4 non conference foes that are likely to end up in a bowl! Why 4? Because the MAC is a weaker conference than the Mountain West (last year) and the non conference victories would need to be more appealing to make up the ground in the BCS.

It just isn't in the cards fellas.

It’s not likely but its possible.

We have 4 teams that have a realistic chance at winning each game week bye week. If they can string them all then it would be great.

I don't understand why some of you think it’s not possible when we had a great example in 2003. NIU was ranked #12 at 7-0 in the first BCS poll and Miami was ranked #11 to end the year at 11-1. The computer average actually had Miami ranked #6 even though they had 0 quality wins according to the formula.

(04-11-2012 09:10 AM)EA3 Wrote:  IF...and we've already established that it's extremely unlikely that one of us will go undefeated...how on earth would we get into the top 16 of the BCS formula with our best wins being the following:

WMU-Minnesota, Illinois, UCONN
Toledo-Arizona, Wyoming, Cincy
NIU-Kansas, Iowa, Army
Ohio-Penn St, New Mexico St, Marshall

(assuming everyone agrees those are the four best teams heading into 2012 play)

There's a darn good chance that none of those teams end up ranked in the top 25. Penn St finished the year at #22 in the BCS. How in the H-E-double hockey sticks are any of us going to crack the top 16 without a win against a top 25 team? Yeah, we might get as high as #20 in the polls...but the BCS standings are a whole different animal.

Houston reached #6 last year while undefeated and prior to losing to Southern Miss and their top 3 wins were:

- UCLA, Louisiana Tech, and Tulsa.

It can happen, but probably (as has been mentioned SEVERAL times) with help from the non-AQ's dropping a bunch of games and being clustered in 2-loss/3-loss teams.

Sure, Penn St. finished #22 but Houston finished #19 and Southern Miss #21. Houston lost to S. Miss but beat Penn St. and only had the "top wins" listed above. Southern Miss' top 3 wins were Houston, Virginia, and Louisiana Tech.

An undefeated MAC team will probably also need the help of at least one other MAC team on their schedule to have a solid year (9-11 wins and maybe be cracking the top 25) to stay up in the rankings.

Again, VERY unlikely BUT possible.

Toledo would have 3 OOC games, then Ohio, WMU, NIU, and another maybe two more West teams ala EMU, or Ball State.
That's 8, and as we established the MAC teams who went bowling were better than the MWC teams like Air Force, Wyoming, and SDSU.
We wouldn't have a big bruiser like Georgia, but Boise State could have been at 4th in the country if they swept their schedule. Toledo only needs to break the top 16.

(04-11-2012 09:37 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  Toledo would have 3 OOC games, then Ohio, WMU, NIU, and another maybe two more West teams ala EMU, or Ball State.
That's 8, and as we established the MAC teams who went bowling were better than the MWC teams like Air Force, Wyoming, and SDSU.
We wouldn't have a big bruiser like Georgia, but Boise State could have been at 4th in the country if they swept their schedule. Toledo only needs to break the top 16.

Hopefully NIU and Toledo can hold up their part of the bargain and be 9-win or 10+ win teams so in the event that the winner of their clash goes undefeated that team can climb as high as possible in the rankings and represent the MAC.

(04-11-2012 09:37 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  Toledo would have 3 OOC games, then Ohio, WMU, NIU, and another maybe two more West teams ala EMU, or Ball State.
That's 8, and as we established the MAC teams who went bowling were better than the MWC teams like Air Force, Wyoming, and SDSU.
We wouldn't have a big bruiser like Georgia, but Boise State could have been at 4th in the country if they swept their schedule. Toledo only needs to break the top 16.

6 MAC teams bowling? With Toledo being one and the other 5 on their schedule? Do you realize how tough it was to get 5 teams last year? Removing Temple from the equation hurts our chances because they were a desirable east coast team. In a year where USC and Miami, FL won enough games to go bowling, but were ineligible or declined invites...we were dangerously close to only sending 3 teams bowling.

And no, if Toledo wins out...they aren't going to be ranked in the top 16 of the BCS. They would need help from no less than 6 or 7 teams to have monster years. Wyoming, Arizona, Cincy, WMU, NIU, Ohio, Ball St, and Bowling Green would all have to win a minimum of 9 games.

Again...we have a better chance at seeing snow in Key West.

(04-11-2012 08:51 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(04-11-2012 08:22 AM)EA3 Wrote:  

(04-11-2012 06:29 AM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(04-10-2012 09:14 AM)EA3 Wrote:  From their point of view:

Why would they award a BCS at large bid to a MAC team that plays in the second to last rated league in the country? Whether or not we agree with that is irrelevant. The national perception paints us ahead of only the Sun Belt. Can, and will, that change with all the realignment and our schools putting a better product on the field? Absolutely.

Why would they award a BCS at large bid to a MAC team that only conquered one top 25 team, if that, all year?

Why would they award a BCS at large bid to a MAC team that draws 1/3 of the home crowd of most BCS schools? Do you really think a MAC team is going to travel well for football? How many butts can we put in the seat for the BCS bowl? The answer is...a fraction of what a BCS team can...and I'm sorry, but the BCS is all about money.

Again, the BCS would choose a 9-3 or 10-2 mega power from the SEC, Big 12, or Big 10 before they even considered a MAC team.

It's wishful thinking, but the stars will never align on this one. It's more likely that one of us wins a 600+ Mega Millions jackpot than our favorite MAC team getting an at large BCS bid.

You keep saying that like there is a choice. Currently there isn't they have to take the highest ranking non-AQ champ under certain criteria and that criteria is feasible with an undefeated MAC team. That is one reason why some AQ conferences want to eliminate the BCS since it currently rewards non-AQ teams with a REAL bowl game rather than the crap we normally get. Utah, TCU, Boise, and Hawaii would never have been taken by the BCS bowls unless forced to case in point Boise last year. That team was higher ranked and better than some of the non-AQs that have been to a BCS bowl but since they were not forced to take them they managed to be kept out. This is why it is important to get it done now before the opportunity closes.

Fair enough.

How likely is it that one of our teams gets in the top 16 in the BCS rankings? We have a better chance of it snowing in Key West. The only way this changes, is if a minimum of 3 of our teams get really good and garner some top 25 votes AND our non conference schedules get tougher.

It's not likely that one of our teams will go undefeated, we've establishes this..... But if one does, we could have a MAC team in a BCS bowl. I think half of the teams in the conference have a good enough schedule to where if they went undefeated it would award a top 16 spot.

Ball State in 2008 was ranked at 12 before they lost to Buffalo. That ranking was high enough that if they were the conference champ by beating Buffalo then they would have gone to a BCS bowl that year assuming they were the highest ranking non-AQ that year (which remember is easier now than it was then since many of the BCS busters are now AQ which means they no longer count such as TCU, Utah, and soon Boise).

The schedule that Ball State had that year was extremely easy as well. Northeastern, Navy, Western Kentucky, Indiana, and the MAC slate. Seriously most of the MAC has a harder schedule than that. When Indiana or Navy is the hardest team you play that year your schedule is fairly weak.

As for an actual example Hawaii's schedule was even easier and they actually made it. Northern Colorado, Charleston Southern, UNLV, and Washington (this was back when Washington was bad). The WAC slate is also similar to ours overall. Boise was decent but not ranked that year so you have a BCS non-AQ team that had a schedule similar to EMUs last year. If they can make it on that schedule I think any of us could if we could somehow manage to go undefeated (which is the REAL problem). Two FCS teams really?

Boise and TCU were both ranked higher than Ball St that year in the BCS. Correct me if I am wrong, but the BCS took a 12-0 Boise team...thus negating Ball St's chances even if they had won.

We can talk about what-ifs all we want. The fact of the matter is that Ball St still didn't do it even after having a ridiculously easy schedule and only losing the MACC game.

When was the last time a MAC team went 13-0? Again, it's more likely to snow in Key West than a MAC team going 13-0 and making a BCS game.

(04-11-2012 11:04 AM)EA3 Wrote:  Boise and TCU were both ranked higher than Ball St that year in the BCS. Correct me if I am wrong, but the BCS took a 12-0 Boise team...thus negating Ball St's chances even if they had won.

We can talk about what-ifs all we want. The fact of the matter is that Ball St still didn't do it even after having a ridiculously easy schedule and only losing the MACC game.

When was the last time a MAC team went 13-0? Again, it's more likely to snow in Key West than a MAC team going 13-0 and making a BCS game.

1999

(04-11-2012 11:15 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(04-11-2012 11:04 AM)EA3 Wrote:  Boise and TCU were both ranked higher than Ball St that year in the BCS. Correct me if I am wrong, but the BCS took a 12-0 Boise team...thus negating Ball St's chances even if they had won.

We can talk about what-ifs all we want. The fact of the matter is that Ball St still didn't do it even after having a ridiculously easy schedule and only losing the MACC game.

When was the last time a MAC team went 13-0? Again, it's more likely to snow in Key West than a MAC team going 13-0 and making a BCS game.

1999

So when has it ever snowed in Key West?

(04-11-2012 11:15 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(04-11-2012 11:04 AM)EA3 Wrote:  Boise and TCU were both ranked higher than Ball St that year in the BCS. Correct me if I am wrong, but the BCS took a 12-0 Boise team...thus negating Ball St's chances even if they had won.

We can talk about what-ifs all we want. The fact of the matter is that Ball St still didn't do it even after having a ridiculously easy schedule and only losing the MACC game.

When was the last time a MAC team went 13-0? Again, it's more likely to snow in Key West than a MAC team going 13-0 and making a BCS game.

1999

There is a reason they are no longer in the MAC.

I give up...you guys win.

(04-11-2012 11:04 AM)EA3 Wrote:  Boise and TCU were both ranked higher than Ball St that year in the BCS. Correct me if I am wrong, but the BCS took a 12-0 Boise team...thus negating Ball St's chances even if they had won.

We can talk about what-ifs all we want. The fact of the matter is that Ball St still didn't do it even after having a ridiculously easy schedule and only losing the MACC game.

When was the last time a MAC team went 13-0? Again, it's more likely to snow in Key West than a MAC team going 13-0 and making a BCS game.

Boise State was undefeated, but did not go to a BCS bowl in 2008. They lost to TCU in the Poinsettia Bowl. So, Ball State was not going to a BCS game even if they'd won the MACC.

I've seen posts saying that Ball State was going had they won the MACC due to their BCS ranking, but there's no way they would have leapfrogged Boise State. I do remember there was some talk from Boise of playing Ball State in the Humanitarian Bowl if Ball State had finished undefeated. Ball State was not inclined to play the Broncos in Boise however.

(04-11-2012 11:24 AM)EA3 Wrote:  

(04-11-2012 11:15 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(04-11-2012 11:04 AM)EA3 Wrote:  Boise and TCU were both ranked higher than Ball St that year in the BCS. Correct me if I am wrong, but the BCS took a 12-0 Boise team...thus negating Ball St's chances even if they had won.

We can talk about what-ifs all we want. The fact of the matter is that Ball St still didn't do it even after having a ridiculously easy schedule and only losing the MACC game.

When was the last time a MAC team went 13-0? Again, it's more likely to snow in Key West than a MAC team going 13-0 and making a BCS game.

1999

There is a reason they are no longer in the MAC.

I give up...you guys win.

Because they wanted to move up and dominate CUSA dispite the much longer travel?