No, just the possible move to mediocre scheduling by every conference give a better chance of running the table. This instead of the big conference marquee matchups we seem to be getting less of. If the Big East can do it, why not everybody.
I gotcha. We have a lot of smart people in this country. I think someone could develop a power ranking system that would reward those who play a tougher schedule. The initial BCS sort of did that with their SOS component, but that was quickly removed b/c it hurt the weaker conferences. Our desire to be fair to everyone gives us a less than desirable system.
Quite frankly, I would say most SEC teams do this already. When he was here, Gerry Dinardo was ademant about not playing top OOC games. That is one reason our OOC schedule stinks right now. The good games we do have were scheduled since 2000. This hurts the SEC in BCS rankings in this way: ALL conferences rate evenly in strength of schedule within the conference, since they all end up with the same number of wins and losses. Differentiation comes from winning OOC games against BCS conference teams. As of right now, the biggest OOC win for the SEC this year is Tennessee over Cal. What game is #2? Auburn over WSU? Now within a conference, a team can have a harder schedule due to which teams they play, since they don't play everyone. Where you play is also factored. But no model of strength of schedule plays in the favor of the SEC right now. OBTW, that's why the BCS formula in 2003 had the 'premier win' factor that helped put LSU in the Sugar Bowl. I wonder if Auburn would have gotten to the NCG in 2004 if the 2003 formula had been used. While I think SEC teams are generally better, the Big1T1en has better wins in the OOC schedule, with TOSU over Texas and Michigan over ND, both on the road. I would like to see a reduction of true 1-A teams and more emphasis on playing better games at the expense of home games. But that doesn't fit the economic model, so I am not holding my breath. GEAUX TIGERS
If you have to play Auburn, Florida, Arkansas, Alabama, Ole Miss (You get the picture) every year you should be allowed to schedule weak out of conference opponents. Especially with the 12 game season. Would I like to see LSU play somebody good out of conference? Sure I would, but I don't think it should hurt them if they don't. I think conferences like The Big East should need to schedule harder Non-conference opponents because of their already weak schedule. This makes absolutely no sense to me. Please elaborate. Nobody is arguing OSU and Michigan should play for the NC if undefeated.
I grant that the Big East doesn't have the athletes the SEC has. But that arguement will never account for the math. See below. [/QUOTE] This makes absolutely no sense to me. Please elaborate. [/QUOTE] Think of a conference schedule as a closed system. If LSU wins 8 conference games, the conference has to absorb 8 losses. A good example of this is the SEC West race. Between them, LSU, Auburn and Arkansas will only have to end up with 3 division losses. But the rest of the division will get 12 other losses to those teams divided among them. So, while LSU Auburn and Arkansas look tough, GTHOM, AMAB and State look like hapless losers, even if they win all of their OOC games. Add up all the conference wins and losses and average them--your result is .500. That's one reason Tennessee and Florida looked so good in the 90s; they had USC, Vandy and Kentucky in their division. Nobody wants to hear the argument that the SEC is tougher because our bottom feeders are better. To ask it another way, are Pitt and South Florida terrible because they lost to WVU, Louisville and Rutgers? To judge relative strength of schedule mathmatically, you have to look at how the conference does in OOC games. Unfortunately, the SEC dodges OOC games against BCS conference opponents. Even more unfortunately, they don't always win the OOC games they have--in fact, the record is rather average. Recent Bowl games aren't all that encouraging either. As an example, AMAB beat Duke, FIU and NLU this year. All three are still looking for their first win and are considered to be in the bottom 10. Those games do nothing for the SEC SOS. If Auburn had beaten SC in 2003, we would have no arguement about our trophy. But we were more than happy to cheer the loss without thinking about what it meant for our SOS. All of this means that I believe that the SEC doesn't have too much leg to stand on in the national arguement when we continue to dodge the Louisvilles of the world. A much more sane system would have the NCAA mandate the quality of OOC games, in the same way the NFL does. [/QUOTE] Nobody is arguing OSU and Michigan should play for the NC if undefeated.[/QUOTE] But Michigan and TOSU can't both be undefeated, can they? Hope this helps, GEAUX TIGERS
