Hey, kids! It's time to play...2009 OOC schedules!

[SoCalTrjn]

Dude - Furman, Citadel & Fuck State could have beaten both Washington schools this year!! They weren't even high school teams!

First of all, that's fucking retarded, and doesn't even deserve a thoughtful retort.

Secondly, the subject is out of conference scheduling. Nobody has control over how good or bad the conference foes they're forced to play are. Is it really that hard for you to stay on subject?

Thats SEC BSH's one retort, Washington would have beat Mississippi State last year by 40, prove they wouldnt have.

that is the same issue with OSU from what I understand...they need 7-8 home games a year...and let's be honest the Big Boys aren't too keen on giving up home games every year with possibly the exception of USC...but to PSU fans point how does USC fund it's program...OSU has what 39 varisty sports I believe...maybe USC doesn't have that many and can afford only 6 home games a year...maybe some of the other sports can sustain themselves moreso and don't rely on Football for everything like a lot of these schools do...all I know is

39 Varsity teams and just 21 National Titles? maybe they should let a few of those teams go.

Van,

Admittedly Bama's OOC isn't too formidable, but Virginia Tech is not a home game. That game will be played in Atlanta. Neutral site.

Calling Atlanta a "Neutral site" in that game is pretty much the same thing as Va Tech calling the game vs USC in Landover MD a "Neutral site." It may not be either teams home stadium but it is hardly "Neutral"

[Van]

M Club, depending on which SOS ranking you care to use the Pac 10 usually cleans up all across the board. For example, some years they have all ten teams in the Top 15 with Sagarin.

Washington was #1 two years ago, until UCLA overtook them at the end of the season. Stanford has been #1. USC has been #1.

The Big 10 doesn't even come close and neither do most SEC teams.

I'm not about to do a ten year search. You can if you'd like. This was the very first SOS link I located, which happened to be for last year's season...

This was that season's final SOS rankings...

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/h ... s_out.html

January 8, 2008 9:27 PM

Final Sagarin ratings out

Posted by Bob Condotta


With the season over, the final Sagarin ratings are out, updated through the bowl games, so thought I'd pass them along.

Here they are.

As you can see, UW finished ranked No. 55 in the nation and eighth in the Pac-10 ahead of WSU and Stanford.

In the final strength of schedule rating, UW fell from the No. 1 perch in the nation it held most of the year to No. 2, behind UCLA. But as noted yesterday, SOS was a category the Pac-10 dominated this year --- nine Pac-10 teams were among the final 19 in the nation in SOS.

Here's the list, with their national rank:

1, UCLA
2, UW
5, Oregon
6, Arizona
7, Cal
10, Stanford
12, Washington State
16, Oregon State
19, Arizona State
29, USC

----------------------------------

That's #'s 1 and 2 plus six of the top ten, with WSU just missing the top ten.

M Club, when your games are nearly always against BCS conference teams you tend to have a higher overall SOS ranking and Pac 10 teams play the most games against BCS conference teams. They play nine games within the conference and most Pac 10 teams schedule ambitiously OOC. You'll never see a Pac 10 team with four home games against OOC cupcakes. The vast majority of Pac 10 OOC games are against BCS conference teams, which means they also do more home-home series than any other BCS conference.

Year in, year out, when all is said and done the Pac 10 does the absolute best job of OOC scheduling, among the BCS conferences. When you add that to the fact that they play nine conference games the Pac 10 takes a back seat to nobody when it comes to overall SOS.

The Big 10 isn't even in the discussion, whether it's OOC scheduling or overall SOS.

[Van]

your second-best team barely beat a shite purdue team before losing at home to boise state. your third-best team was waxed by penn state.

Funny how you failed to mention that the Big 10's two best teams got obliterated by the Pac 10, as is usually the case.

[Harvdog]

Has anybody here seen LSU's facilities, upclose and personal? I have.

People, a lot of the money LSU raises by raping and pillaging their usual schedule of local French whores is going straight back into the football program. A lot of their recent facilities are football specific and not available to the general student population.

This shit, it's all about football want, not institutional need...period.

I got a chance last year to tour the facilities at LSU and I was not that impressed. The weight room was average, the field was ok and the field house was dated. The only cool things were the locker room, meeting room and the Bowl room. But, they didn't even have LCD TV's in the locker room....they were old tube style. The lockers looked nice. They made it a point to let us know that the only way to get your name in the locker room is to be an academic all-american. Needless to say, short list! The interview room on the way to the field was a dump. We did sit in the meeting room and they showed us the recruiting video. That place had a nice screen and great sound. The Bowl room only remembers the games LSU won.

I have a bunch of pictures....

[M Club]

your second-best team barely beat a shite purdue team before losing at home to boise state. your third-best team was waxed by penn state.

Funny how you failed to mention that the Big 10's two best teams got obliterated by the Pac 10, as is usually the case.

hardly, though it's fitting you use pac 10 instead of usc since the entire conference's reputation depends on them. no one's arguing that usc isn't the best program in cf. the problem is they trip over their own dicks every year and then their fans circle the wagons in an attempt to convince everyone, anyone, that stanford and oregon state are legitimate programs. it's about three seconds from now where some pac 10 honk points out that oregon state always starts slow before finishing with eight or nine wins without taking into account that they start out slow against non-pac 10 schools before beating up on the rest of their conference. hmm.

re: sos, i have no idea why you brought up the big ten or ooc scheduling in response to anything i said. ad hominem of sorts? i wasn't arguing that the big ten scheduled an ambitious ooc, was i? i merely said even though the pac 10 does and the sec doesn't, the sec schools still end up with better sos rankings. [still looking for that big ten reference you're so fascinated with.] great, you pulled sagarin. i googled cf sos and found a few that proved my point and not yours. i'd start by looking at the one used by the bcs.

[Van]

great, you pulled sagarin. i googled cf sos and found a few that proved my point and not yours. i'd start by looking at the one used by the bcs.

I did. The BCS uses Sagarin.

Also, don't think you're going to be able to sit there and say stupid shit such as comparing Chattanooga and Furman with "six Pac 10 conference teams" and not expect to hear something back about the Big 10.

No, the SEC's OOC schedules do not equate to six Pac 10 conference teams. Hell, LSU's best OOC opponent this year is the Pac 10's bottom feeder.

There are simply no words to accurately describe Furman, much less Chattanooga.

[M Club]

jfc, you'd think someone who's written for years like you have - and by years i mean a single one of your posts - would be able to pick up on sarcasm. nearly all of my posts on every incarnation of this board have been tongue-in-cheek. i'm fairly reasonable about the state of college football. so to spell it out for you: no, an all-star team comprised of teams the sec collectively plays ooc wouldn't be pac 10 caliber. the point: your ooc bashing is thinly-veiled justification for usc's inability to get through a gauntlet of teams they should beat by 50 each. ja, the pac 10 schedules tougher games than other conferences, which is something to hang their hats on once they go 1-87 against the mountain west. cookies, right?

[Van]

You're the Big 10. You can't beat the Pac 10. It bugs you. You lash out.

Okay, I get it.

[M Club]

hardly. aside from playing at usc every time we meet, my team generally has no issue with the pac 10 when they're willing to come to aa. otherwise, i'm not a conference honk since raising that flag generally has to do with justifying your team's failures.

[PSUFAN]

Funny how you failed to mention that the Big 10's two best teams got obliterated by the Pac 10, as is usually the case.

Like he said, you're talking about USC, not the Pac 10. The team that almost went to the Rose Bowl - that defeated USC - was mercilessly buttmouthhumped by Penn State.

Basically, you don't have a conference strength argument - you have an argument for USC, a valid one...but it's not valid enough to spread to the rest of the conference.

Back to USC's athletic department...I wonder how many taxpayer dollars support it? I don't live in California any more...but there are some concerns about the state budget looming...right?

IF a program can support itself by arranging for 7 home games for the football team...IF that is possible...then it should be done.

And again - I think it can be done in a way that the competitiveness of the program is intact. That's exactly where my issue with PSU's AD begins. I think they have been lazy and greedy, and I think they're going to be far more brazen when the old man checks out.

[Van]

Basically, you don't have a conference strength argument - you have an argument for USC, a valid one...but it's not valid enough to spread to the rest of the conference.

This originally started off as a scheduling discussion. Then M Club came in with his jibe about the SEC's OOC schedules being the equivalent of playing six Pac 10 teams.

In terms of the SOS argument, yes, above and beyond USC the Pac 10 definitely has a valid arguent. They have the most valid argument.

Back to USC's athletic department...I wonder how many taxpayer dollars support it? I don't live in California any more...but there are some concerns about the state budget looming...right?

Like I said, I think the answer is "none" since USC is a private institution. I don't know that USC receives a single tax dollar.

IF a program can support itself by arranging for 7 home games for the football team...IF that is possible...then it should be done.

Not really. Every team should play a 6-6 schedule, not a 'puff loaded 7-5 schedule. Beyond that, we're talking about teams who are playing 8-4 schedules, not just 7-5 schedules.

And again - I think it can be done in a way that the competitiveness of the program is intact. That's exactly where my issue with PSU's AD begins. I think they have been lazy and greedy, and I think they're going to be far more brazen when the old man checks out.

I'd still like to know why a school like Penn St needs to do it while schools like UCLA, Cal, Washington, Oregon and Arizona don't need to do it.

[Left Seater]

What many of you don't understand is that some athletic departments rely on playing road games to ensure they can continue to field teams.

Some of the larger schools are paying around $1 Million for a home game without the return home game. Further, some of the host schools are also paying travel expenses in addition to the fee. Play two of those a season and you just made your budget.

Some will then argue that if a school can't make it without those games then they should move down a level. The problem with that is it will then lead to even further contraction. Now you have fewer schools spread further apart. Now instead of bus trips for most road games you are adding plane trips. There are many more schools that don't need the road payouts, but can't afford to fly to 4 road games.

So if you want a balanced 6-6 schedule are you really ready for the top division to be only 55 schools? That is what would happen over the course of a few years.

[SoCalTrjn]

Games vs teams where the BCS conf school pays the patsie to come get beat up should not count in the BCS equation, the stats from those games should also be thrown out. if a team plays 7 home games they get an automatic loss added to their computer rankings, play 8 home games, they get 2 losses. We're not trying to fund east west popcorn states football program, we're trying to decide who iws the national champion and full dressed scrimages vs junior college teams are interfering with finding out who the champ is.
USC will fly to play 6 teams on the road this year, including 66% of their OOC games, without a single penny from the states tax payers, if a little private school in the ghetto of some broken city in a bankrupt state can do it, so can everyone else.

[PSUFAN]

Some of the larger schools are paying around $1 Million for a home game without the return home game.

Usually, Penn State pays less. I know they paid Temple 600k in 2006, and they paid Coastal Carolina 400k last year.

[Van]

Lefty, how are you coming up with only 55 teams? Only counting the six BCS conferences and the four Independents there are already 69 teams. Then there's the MWC, WAC, Conference USA, etc.

There are plenty enough teams out there to cover OOC games and 6-6 schedules (plus neutral site games), without ever going outside of D1. Hell, it could be managed without ever going outside the BCS conferences.

[Van]

Van,

I realize the discussion has gone elsewhere, but I have to say that Alabama needs a weak-ass schedule next year. They're damn lucky it worked out that way.

Sam, it wasn't luck. Bama picked up the phone.

I can't figure out all these people picking the Tide to finish #5 and in that range.

Maybe they looked at Bama's schedule? It worked last year for Taco Tech. It worked the year before for Kansas and Mizzou, whose schedules vaulted them to their flukey high rankings. It used to work all the time for Kansas St. Hell, it worked last year for Bama, whose only win of note was the win over wildly overrated Georgia.

A new QB (with basically zero experience, no matter if it's Greg McElroy or Star Jackson) and pretty much a new offensive line spells disaster if you ask me. The defense will be fine, but probs at O-line and a new QB doesn't equate to a top ten ranking IMHO.

That's what my LSU buddy was telling me yesterday...

"Bama is going to be down this year, we're not worried about them."

That was before we looked at Bama's schedule. LSU ought to be worried because LSU at least plays Florida and LSU isn't likely to receive any help from someone else knocking off Bama for them.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

great, you pulled sagarin. i googled cf sos and found a few that proved my point and not yours. i'd start by looking at the one used by the bcs.

I did. The BCS uses Sagarin.

The BCS doesn't use Jeff Sagarin's strengh of schedule "ratings." The BCS uses Jeff Sagarin's overall ratings, which are made up of strength of schedule points, among other factors.

But let's not forget the BCS also uses five other computer polls which make up one component of the overall formula. One of those other computer polls is Ken Massey's. From a SOS standpoint, Massey had 20 other teams ahead of USC, and rated the Pac 10 6th overall (putting the Big East and Mountain West ahead of it).

I'm not here to say Massey's ratings are any better or worse. I'm just here to say let's stop acting like Sagarin is the end all, be all. He's not. He's only one component of one third of the entire methodology; and no, his ratings, SOS or otherwise, are NOT necessarily consistent with some of the other ratings that are used by the BCS.

[Van]

So you Pac10ers are suggesting that playing Washington State, Washington and Stanford is more difficult than playing Appalachian State or Furman (which used to be a power)? Hmmmm...I don't know about that.

You ought to know. Those Pac 10 teams are all BCS conference teams and they're on the regular conference schedule, same as your garbage Vandy, Ole Miss, Miss St, Kentucky, S. Carolina, etc.

The difference is that Washington has actually won a national title in recent memory, along with a number of Pac 10 titles and Rose Bowls.

Stanford has won Rose Bowls in my lifetime. Since 2001 they're the only team in the nation to beat USC in the Coliseum, and they've done so twice. Furman was never going to do that. Stanford is also #2 in the nation in overall national titles. They earn their keep. Washington St has also won a league title and a Rose Bowl or two, or they've at least been to the Rose Bowl. I honestly don't recall at the moment whether they won the game(s).

None of those dregs of the SEC have managed league titles in recent memory, much less a national title. They're just perennial doormats. The SEC has even more conference bottom feeding going on than the Pac 10.

Don't even begin to compare 0-8/1-11 D1-AA Chattanooga to the Washington Huskies.

Hell, LSU is actually traveling to Washington to open their season this year. Think they'd do that for Samford, Elon, Furman or Chattanooga?

Get serious.

I think any school would love to see UW and WSU on their schedule every year.

Your SEC bottom feeder schools would get ripped new ones if they had to do an annual home/home with Washington. Washington is usually a very good team. They're not Kentucky or Mississippi St. They're at least Tennessee. Most years your D1-AA patsies wouldn't stand a prayer playing Washington.

And, yes, I know Washington was good not that long ago, but, right now, neither they nor WSU could compete in Conference USA...or the MWC...or even the Southern Conference.

Yes they could. Right now. And they'll soon be back to at least being a decent team, which is more than you can say about most SEC bottom feeders who are nearly never good.

Yes, USC plays Ohio State (wow! who've they beaten outside their conference lately?)

Wow! Name me an OOC opponent of Bama's who's 1-2 in this decade in BCS title games! Name me an OOC opponent of Bama's who's spent the better part of multiple full seasons ranked #1. Name me the last time Bama took a genuine roadie to a team who is a perennial Top 10 team, going back forty years!

Wow!, indeed.

and Notre Dame (not USC's fault the Irish have fallen on hard times).

Nope. When you're talking about the second winningest and single most prestigious program of all time you don't have to apologize for playing them every single year. It's not like USC cherry picks the years they schedule ND, the way the SEC often does with their few decent "name" OOC opponents.

San Jose State doesn't impress me any more than a game against Louisiana-Monroe (ouch).

San Jose St is as bad as it ever gets for USC and still they're better than the majority of SEC OOC opponents.

When USC's worst OOC opponent is superior to many of the SEC's best OOC opponents you really need to sit this one out.

Then there's that murderer's row of conference games. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exactly! Now you're gettting it!

Miss St, Kentucky, Ole Miss, S. Carolina, Arkansas, Auburn, Tennessee and LSU! There are only three teams there who are traditionally any good at all but they all completely suck balls right now!!

BWAAAHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How in the FUCK were you able to escape Vandy??? If someone was thinking clearly they would've added Vandy in place of Va Tech. Play an extra conference game, who cares, it's still a cupcake!

Somebody's head should roll over that one.

You know I'd love to see the Buckeyes and the Irish on our schedule in place of the little schools.

Would you? Even though it would mean risking losing games, and having to give up home games?

I admit it's embarrassing.

Then leave it at that. The Pac 10's scheduling isn't embarrassing, including their conference schedule...which, btw, happens to be the only time USC is ever presented with a challenge.

We've got Penn State next year. That'll look better.

Home and home, I hope. Bama should endeavor to schedule at least one huge major intersectional game every year. In fact, every team in America should set up their own version of USC-ND. Every team should set up their own intersectional rivalry game.

If everyone's doing it then the stigma of losing even one game is mitigated and teams can quit worrying about having to schedule themselves perfect seasons.

Florida already has Florida St, though I'd really like to see Florida St and Miami join the SEC.

USC has ND, though I'd like to see them add an SEC heavyweight too, since they already get a lot of action with the Big 10. Yeah, make USC-LSU or USC-Bama an annual game. Pair it with UCLA-Tennessee.

Miami vs Penn St. Camouflage fatigues for everybody.

Texas-Ohio St is badass. Make it permanent.

OU-Florida wouldn't suck even a little.

Michigan-Auburn.

All the traditional powerhouses...hook the fuck up with each other, every fucking year; annual rivalry games, just littering the schedule all year long. Maybe even try to do 'em all on the same day every year, creating something even bigger than New Year's Day for college football fans.

Money just hemorrhaging everywhere...

Why the fuck not??

[Van]

Mgo, I already granted what you said when I said this...

depending on which SOS ranking you care to use the Pac 10 usually cleans up all across the board. For example, some years they have all ten teams in the Top 15 with Sagarin.

I'm not about to do a ten year search. You can if you'd like. This was the very first SOS link I located, which happened to be for last year's season...

The very first link that came up was a Sagarin link. That's what I said.

[Laxplayer]

Here's what should happen. I suggested this years ago...not that anyone gives a rat$ a$$ about my opinion. Do what they do in basketball. Conference challenges. Do these on a two year cycle where one year one conference travels to the other and the first place teams play each other, then the next year the other conference has a home game.
So if it's the Pac-10 and SEC then last year U$C (am I allowed to mention them) would have played LSU or whoever, then this year they would play Florida. I think it makes sense because it actually does. You know that on an every other year basis you're going to travel. Then rotate the conferences and the Pac-10 plays the ACC or the Big-12 and there ya have it.

You don't have to thank me just send money........

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Mgo, I already granted what you said when I said this...

depending on which SOS ranking you care to use the Pac 10 usually cleans up all across the board. For example, some years they have all ten teams in the Top 15 with Sagarin.

I'm not about to do a ten year search. You can if you'd like. This was the very first SOS link I located, which happened to be for last year's season...

The very first link that came up was a Sagarin link. That's what I said.

The way I read your take, it implied to me that the BCS uses Sagarin's SOS exclusively. If that's not your take, well...good.

In addition, I was also refuting your claim that "across the board" the Pac cleans up. That's simply not true, as I pointed out with Massey's conference ratings, which had the Pac finishing #6.

[Van]

Mgo, I'm aware that Sagarin is one of only six computer polls used by the BCS to comprise their computer rankings component of the formula. Sagarin's is however the most well known of the six. I don't know how he comes up with his formulas but the Pac 10 totally cleans up just about every year in his SOS rankings.

How the Pac 10 does with SOS in Elo-Chess and some of those other more obscure polls, I couldn't say.

The one thing I do know to a an absolute certainty is that this notion that the Pac 10 conference schedule is a walk in the park is flat out nonsense. Rarely does anybody make it through the entire Pac 10 conference schedule unscathed, and that includes some all time great teams.

I'm not saying that's not also true of the SEC, for example. I'm just saying that USC fears their conference schedule far more than their OOC schedule and their OOC schedule is traditionally among the toughest in the nation among BCS teams.

On an individual game basis USC is usually favored every time during conference play. Yep. (That's also true for them OOC.) They still know that there will be a land mine out there somewhere in conference, if not a few land mines.

They may escape. They may not. Most years, they don't.

The Pac 10 is no different in this regard than other BCS conferences. In fact I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that teams have managed to run the table in the Big 10 more than in the Pac 10.

[buckeye_in_sc]

sam

[Screw_Michigan]

So you Pac10ers are suggesting that playing Washington State, Washington and Stanford is more difficult than playing Appalachian State or Furman (which used to be a power)? Hmmmm...I don't know about that.

You're really not doing much to dispel the stereotype that southerners are the biggest fucking idiots in the nation. Keep it up.

[Van]

I don't buy that SEC doormats are weaker than Pac 10 bottomfeeders, though.

Then you're wrong.

The Pac 10 teams rotate much more from year to year and the swings are much greater. In the SEC the same teams are nearly always on the bottom. If they ever burp up even the occasional respectable season it was only due to a fluke of scheduling and then it's right back to the pits they go. Even their rare good years aren't all that good.

In the SEC it's nearly always the same teams who are thirty point dogs in conference and they almost never win. In the Pac 10 these teams change all the time and they beat each other a lot more often.

Most years Mississippi St, Ole Miss, Vandy and Kentucky are simply horrible. They're been perennially horrible and they've never risen to the top during the modern era. Take away their bullshit OOC schedules and make them play real OOC games and these teams often struggle to win a game...any game.

S. Carolina is only slightly better and they too have never risen above mediocrity.

Arkansas has actually done quite a bit better than most SEC folks which to give them credit for but still they're the definition of mediocre.

The SEC has twelve teams. Of these twelve teams only Bama, Florida, LSU, Georgia, Tennessee and Auburn are perennially good. Each of these teams have had their ups and downs as well, obviously, but that still leaves half the conference as being nothing more than hopeless cannon fodder.

Six teams in the SEC are nothing more than the Washington Generals. Some years it's more than six teams, like last year, or next year.

The SEC is every bit as top heavy and bottom hungry as every other conference.

[MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan]

What many of you don't understand is that some athletic departments rely on playing road games to ensure they can continue to field teams.

Some of the larger schools are paying around $1 Million for a home game without the return home game. Further, some of the host schools are also paying travel expenses in addition to the fee. Play two of those a season and you just made your budget.

Some will then argue that if a school can't make it without those games then they should move down a level. The problem with that is it will then lead to even further contraction. Now you have fewer schools spread further apart. Now instead of bus trips for most road games you are adding plane trips. There are many more schools that don't need the road payouts, but can't afford to fly to 4 road games.

So if you want a balanced 6-6 schedule are you really ready for the top division to be only 55 schools? That is what would happen over the course of a few years.

OK, so now we have two polar opposite explanations for scheduling 7-8 home games a year. How can home games against FCS patsies be a windfall for both the patsy and the home team?

I do like the idea of scaling back the FBS division though. If doing that would ensure balanced scheduling, I'm all for it.

[buckeye_in_sc]

no you didn't...

[buckeye_in_sc]

Tell you what Willie...

I ain't a homer in terms of always thinking OSU is the shit...

I say fuck it...I say to OSU go out and schedule at least 1 BIG TIME team 2 Deece level BCS teams and your 1 in state gimmie...then play the Big 10...if you want to be considered a man then man the fuck up Sweater Vest...so for instance in my example a perfect schedule for me would look like

Big Time - USC, UF, LSU, OU, TX, UGA, etc...fuck it home, away, neutral I could give a fuck less 1 of these
Deece Level - Colorado, WVU, UNC, Maryland, KAL, etc...2 of those again, home, away, neutral...
IN State Gimmie - not 1-AA...

I hear all the time about OSU football needing X games to support athletic department...well MISTER AD...figure out another way to come up with some budget dollars...tell the fucking fencing team to have a bake sale for all I care...but give up the 1 other home game a year and schedule this shit...

better?

[SoCalTrjn]

a playoff system that only allows teams that play equal amounts of road and home games to participate in. You cant seed teams when one played 8 home games and another played 6

[buckeye_in_sc]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

that is fucking ignorant...it works for basketball and I HIGHLY doubt that each team plays equal amounts of road v home games...yeah I know you hate basketball...but get serious dude...

I am starting to think you might be one of the families on Real Housewives of Orange County...fucked up families, fucked up kids...fucked up parents...sad really

[Terry in Crapchester]

So you Pac10ers are suggesting that playing Washington State, Washington and Stanford is more difficult than playing Appalachian State or Furman (which used to be a power)?

By that logic, ND certainly shouldn't be getting any shit for playing Navy or Army (the latter not every year, btw). I daresay that either of those schools has a better football tradition than Furman.

[PSUFAN]

Until somebody who knows football and isn't a homer shows up in here, this thread will go nowhere.

I think my takes are homer-proof.

Go ahead - use that as a sig!!

[Van]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

that is fucking ignorant...it works for basketball and I HIGHLY doubt that each team plays equal amounts of road v home games...

Not exactly a fair comparison. Basketball allows half its teams into its playoffs. Where you're seeded is all that's up for stake. That's all that gets accomplished in basketball's regular season. Basketball has two separate seasons and only the second one matters since the first one is one huge exhibition game for all the really good teams who all already know they're going to the second season.

Football will likely award no more than eight spots. Those eight spots will carry a much larger premium than those sixty five spots in basketball. Determining those eight spots really should be something that's based on the ability to at least somewhat rate these teams accurately.

This would require that these teams all play on something like a level playing field. Playing 33% more home games than another team while also playing D1-AA teams and whatever other cheesy smegma you can scrape up does not make for a level playing field.

SoCalTrjn is correct on this one. Until everybody is at least playing the same type of schedule against the same type of opponents it'll be a large bit of nonsense to try to choose the top eight teams.

[indyfrisco]

I am starting to think you might be one of the families on Real Housewives of Orange County...fucked up families, fucked up kids...fucked up parents...sad really

Dude, you watch Desperate Housewives?

[The Seer]

Here's what should happen. I suggested this years ago...not that anyone gives a rat$ a$$ about my opinion. Do what they do in basketball. Conference challenges. Do these on a two year cycle where one year one conference travels to the other and the first place teams play each other, then the next year the other conference has a home game.
So if it's the Pac-10 and SEC then last year U$C (am I allowed to mention them) would have played LSU or whoever, then this year they would play Florida. I think it makes sense because it actually does. You know that on an every other year basis you're going to travel. Then rotate the conferences and the Pac-10 plays the ACC or the Big-12 and there ya have it.

You don't have to thank me just send money........

Makes too much sense. We'll have a look at it and put it in the file right behind the playoff system...

Sincerely,

ncaa

[Van]

Until somebody who knows football and isn't a homer shows up in here, this thread will go nowhere.

I think my takes are homer-proof.

Go ahead - use that as a sig!!

If it weren't you who said it then yeah, it would be sig worthy.

It was you though and all joking aside, nope, you're neither joking nor bragging. You're a homer, sure, but your takes on PSU and CF aren't homer takes.

Full credit.

Sam...

Who's got the free time to post that Van does!

I'd hope that none of you would, considering the fact that I wouldn't either were it not for Susan's latest bout of surgery and my need to be here.

Hell, just be glad this board is still doing some business this time of year!

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Until somebody who knows football and isn't a homer shows up in here, this thread will go nowhere.

Dude, come on...

Instead of just sacking up and saying, "yep, that OOC schedule sucks," you're justifying it by saying Furman has a better program than the University of Washington.

You sure YOU want to play the homer card?

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

By the way, can I just point out the obvious fact that if you're even in the position of attempting to window dress or justify a team like Furman -- your argument is pretty sad to begin with

[Van]

Sam, 'Spray has also done the same thing before in making wild ass homer assertions about local southeastern high school teams being on a par with Washington.

You both deserve an equal beating.

[M Club]

The difference is that Washington has actually won a national title in recent memory, along with a number of Pac 10 titles and Rose Bowls.

Stanford has won Rose Bowls in my lifetime. Since 2001 they're the only team in the nation to beat USC in the Coliseum, and they've done so twice. Furman was never going to do that. Stanford is also #2 in the nation in overall national titles. They earn their keep. Washington St has also won a league title and a Rose Bowl or two, or they've at least been to the Rose Bowl. I honestly don't recall at the moment whether they won the game(s).
........................

The Pac 10 teams rotate much more from year to year and the swings are much greater. In the SEC the same teams are nearly always on the bottom. If they ever burp up even the occasional respectable season it was only due to a fluke of scheduling and then it's right back to the pits they go. Even their rare good years aren't all that good.

really, you're basing an argument on the fact washington's last national championship is almost old enough to vote? a lot of argument by fiat here.