I love the SEC for its strength, great games, awesome defenses, talent, competitiveness, etc. But, that cannot be said for all the other BCS conferences. I really like seeing us play a quality OOC opponent...see Va. Tech last year. With that said, until there is conference parity, the argument is purely selective. A good example is Georgia this year. The media loves to rattle off the Georgia schedule and then say something like..."they''ll never make it through that tough SEC schedule." Then in the same breath talk about the weak OOC schedule. I never hear the same type of comments about USC's IN conference opponents, but I do see copious amounts of drool when USC plays Notre Dame. I crave great opponents and awesome battles. But, if the goal is the big dance, then SOS for IN conference should weigh as much as OOC. That is, until there is more interconference parity. Those on the boards who want to see better OOC foes are correct. But, I can still see sheduling a cupcake or two for warm up. USC COULD schedule nearly any PAC-10 team for a warm up. Instead they get OOC (BCS conference) bottom feeders while they await there game with Stanford. USC is gearing up to play Ohio State.:rolleye33: There going to have to replace some of the ESPN and other network desks due to wetness.
As I recall in the 70-80s, Nebraska, Oklahoma, PSU, Alabama, etc used to run up the score and blow DII teams out 78-0 routinely, and this was lauded as demonstrating how "great" they were. Now, teams are "bullies" if they beat a team handily, or the OOC schedule is seemingly "weak". On the other hand, if the score differential is not great enough, you may drop in the rankings. The media is ridiculous and their job is create drama. I agree with The Dude's and Bandits take on this. Our SEC schedule is so tough, if you have your eye on the prize at the end, you have to be careful what you schedule OOC, or you will either get beat or worn down, or both. As long as our schedule in totality is respectible, then that should be what we care about. As far as USC, they play in the Pac -10 (enough said), so they need to bulk up OOC opponents. Also, in the last 4 years we have exact same number of victories, and exactly one more BCS NC than them, so our system of scheduling is arguably more productive and they should be compared to us, not the opposite. Also, many teams who are scheduled years in advance, may either be stronger or weaker by the time we play them. Examples, Tulane and Houston on our upcoming schedule. Tulane gave us all we could handle for 3 qtrs last year, and outplayed ALA yesterday (did anyone see the total yards for each team, something like 180 for ALA, and 330 for TU), and Houston is an up and coming team, talent wise.
Yep, going to a 12 game regular season has cause more cupcakes than steaks... and totally fun articles from our friends at ESPN. Since Penn State started Big Ten play in 1993, the Big Ten has played exactly 300 games against other BCS leagues (prior to this season), most of any BCS conference. The SEC is second... your 12 teams have played 263 games against other BCS leagues since you went to two divisions in 1992. The Pac10, since 1992, has played only 230 BCS league foes and the Big 12, a whopping 200 since they became the Big 12 in 1996. The Big East and ACC are so "recent" that it's hard to define their OCC schedules without creating total confusion. That said, it's hard to just blame the SEC for playing cupcakes, even if the numbers above include post season. On the subject of top to bottom toughness in the different leagues, as a reason to schedule cupcakes, the numbers are not really in favor of the SEC. No BCS conference has had more conference champs get through league play undefeated than the SEC. Since 1992, someone's run the table 6 times and 8 times someone has gone 7-1. In the PAC 10, only four times has someone made it through conference play undefeated since 1992 and it's only happened four times in the Big 12 since 1996. The Big Ten, like the SEC, has had an undefeated champion 6 times since 1993. The conference with the most diversity of teams who have won a conference title is the PAC 10... every team out there has either won or tied for the conference crown since 1992. They also have the most 2 loss champions. The Big Ten is second with 8 different champions. Of course, neither has a league championship game, but even if you count east and west winners, or north/south for the Big 12, you don't come up with the variety of the Pac 10. BTW, you guys are 31-21 against the Big Ten since 1992 (damn Indiana/Kentucky games!)... and going into this year, you were 21-18 against the Big 12 and 9-10 against the PAC 10. So, yes, I think the SEC should venture out a tad more often, as I think in the long run it would pay off when we fall into all the strongest conference debates. I also think having Georgia and LSU play some bigger match-ups and do your SEC talking, instead of using Tennessee and, occasionally, Auburn as your traveling poster boys, would serve your mission a tad better.
I absolutely hate how we schedule OOC. We deserve the criticism, period. Yes, our conference schedule is murder, but since we know we're not going to win the NC every year, why not schedule some marquee national match-ups to generate sure-fire excitement every year? Don't tell me the hype generated from traveling to USC couldn't make up for playing UNT at home. Give me a freakin' break! Here's another thing, for the second time in four seasons, our early season has been screwed up to high holy h#$% from hurricane season. It might be nice to get our happy butts up North or out West to play more often...I'm just saying.
