so if a team isnt a contender (nc i suppose) then they are a cupcake? cupcakes are teams that arent on the recruiting radar. lsu needs more washingtons and fewer directional schools if they care about sos.
That's total BS! Cupcakes are crappy teams and has nothing to do with "recruiting radar". Washington is a cupcake. You need to pay better attention. Toolame is a better program than Washington at this time.
thats pretty stupid so what is your argument? mine is that if lsu scheduled bottom-end bcs conference teams instead of in-state schools, year in and year out lsu would have much stronger sos. i think lsu's schedule is one of the tougher in the nation. for years ive made the argument (on TF) that sos is calculated incorrectly because for top programs beating Miss St is just as likely as beating N Texas but you get much more credit for beating MissSt. but griping about how lsu's current schedule sos should somehow be higher is redickulus. its just a formula. if lsu wants a better sos, it should not schedule bottom-feeders. usc and nd rarely schedule bottom feeders.
btw, cfn's 2009 rankings of teams of interest (of 120 total) UW--65 ULL-108 tulane--112 LaTech-86 Navy--88 (notre dame oppt) SanJose St 83 (usc oppt)
This is complete bull. We play Ga. Bama, Ole Miss on the road, and Fla at home. I can't see this not being a top 10 schedule.
Turn your brain on for a second and think about it. Utah and Boise state are never teams that are on the "recruiting radar", but I don't think they are considered creampuffs. Texas A&M however is frequently highly ranked in recruiting(ESPN #10 currently) yet they have been a creampuff for some time. Recruiting "radar" as you call it is great, but doesn't determine whether a team is a creampuff or not. Really stupid argument on your part, but if you believe it please continue. You miss the point entirely, why am I not surprised?:dis::dis::dis: Never said LSU's strength of schedule should be higher, what I said is USC's shouldn't be higher than LSU because their entire conference schedule is filled with creampuffs. More credit should be given for playing so many top 25 teams and less should be given for playing an entire schedule made up of mediocre teams.
it is as good an indicator as any. except maybe being an LSU OOC oppt. so what should be done? make up a special sos formula for lsu or for the sec? they are giving each oppt weight. changing the formula to what you say would be a bad way to evaluate schedules for non-top 25 programs. because it doesnt matter if rice plays USCe or USCw, rice would lose even though both those oppts would have dramatically different rankings.
I'm not a big fan of how they calculate SOS, but if we win the SEC we'll likely be in the BCS title game. If Team A plays teams ranked as follows, their average rank would be 39.2: 1 4 6 8 13 22 55 68 105 110 If Team B plays teams ranked as follows, their average rank would be 29.6: 5 19 22 28 29 30 36 37 44 46 Which schedule would most people think is more difficult to actually play?
Instead of strength of schedule we should use strength of performance. For winning games against better teams, teams should get more credit and for losing games against lesser teams, teams should lose more points. Playing a bunch of mediocre teams is not as impressive to most of us as playing quite a few strong teams and a few cupcakes, depending on wins and losses, of course.
