re: strength of schedule complaints

quote:

---

People that are in favor of 4 cupcakes on the schedule because they want a national championship, piss me off.

---

thanks for sharing

i never said i was in favor of either.

quote:

---

They finished #3 in the final BCS standings (going into the bowls). It didn't hurt them too badly, obviously.

---

Any 1 loss BCS team would've played in the National Championship. The only reason VT wasn't a 1-loss team was because they played LSU. I wouldn't exactly say that the loss "didn't hurt them too badly, obviously."

quote:

---

the strength of schedule argument is really bogus in today's college football. The argument really is the degree of difficulty in going undefeated. If team A plays opponents ranked 8th and 99th, while team B plays opponents ranked 30th and 40th, from a pure average standpoint, B has the tougher "schedule". However, A has a higher probability of being 1-1 after the two games.

---

This is one of the most intelligent things I've ever seen on this board!

What's important is not the average strength of the scheduled teams, it's how many teams have a reasonable chance of coming close to beating you.

That said, we should not be scheduling the weakest teams around for out of conference games. Schedule some that have a chance of beating you, but not a very high probability of beating you. The national media will give you more credit for it, and that's important.

quote:

---

It was a great idea in 2007. No way do we get into the NC game with two losses if we don't play Virginia Tech.

---

Okay, then turn the tables and consider 2002 if Mauck hadn't hurt his foot. The way the team was clicking at that point, winning out after Florida was a real possibility. What would our chances have been of making the National Championship Game at 11-1, ahead of undefeated Miami and undefeated Ohio State? Considering we were just one spot behind Ohio State in the preseason polls, leapfrogging them with an undefeated season would not have been out of the question. Replace that VT opener with a home game against Rice, North Texas, etc., and we are seriously in the debate. But after that loss in Blacksburg, it was all over. How many times should we just concede any shot whatsoever at the National Championship Game in the hopes of a dominating win over a top 10 opponent someday getting us back into the National Championship Game with two losses again?

Three teams (off the top of my head) have made it to the National Championship Game with a 1-AA opponent. No amount of "cupcakeness" in an opponent is going to bar a team from the Championship Game. The weight of the schedule as a whole will be much more substantial. Sadly, however, neither factor (nor both combined, even) will ever carry as much weight with the polls as their biases, distorted perceptions, and industry agendas (none of which are topped by "best interests of football" or "best interests of football fans"). So long as human polls are so much of a decisive factor in determining the National Championship matchup, SoS (much like OOC scheduling) will be nothing more than a red herring, tossed out by pundits to distract the braying masses from their actual practice of manipulating the system to sell more papers/commercials/hits/etc.

quote:

---

make the schedule harder and lsu doesn't even have a chance to challenge for the national championship.

---

without VT in 2007, we don't have the NC. Weak scheduling almost cost us in 2003 as well

With a weak non sec schedule LSU will need to go undefeated to have a shot at a NC.

Not sure what's easier. Going undefeated with a cupcake schedule or losing just a game with an overall competitive schedule?

quote:

---

without VT in 2007, we don't have the NC.

---

i'm not so sure about that. florida '06 changed college football. the sec champ is now difficult to keep out of the picture. now that lsu has won it decisively with 2 losses, it's going to be even more difficult to keep a 1 loss sec champ out of the ncg regardless of the human rankings.

quote:

---

Weak scheduling almost cost us in 2003 as well

---

i don't recall that. lsu got in the ncg because they were #2 in the bcs rankings. the sos was better than usc's, iirc.

quote:

---

While it may not be fair, or what most fans wanna see, you have to admit it still gives LSU a great chance at a title and they still sell out those season tickets, so it works

---

They could charge a higher price and still sell out season tickets IF they brought in better OOC opponents. Nobody would complain.


...and to be honest, I don't care if LSU wins a national title as long as there is great football games to be seen in Tiger Stadium. Everybody is obsessed with national championships.

quote:

---

In 2007 we won the NC and beat 5 of the final top 15 teams. We were the best despite two losses. Playing a tough schedule gave us that edge. Without that, we don't even make it to the NC Game.

---

Or maybe without that tough schedule we have enough healthy players to beat an average Kentucky or Arkansas team and we'd have won the NC without 2 losses.

quote:

---

Any 1 loss BCS team would've played in the National Championship. The only reason VT wasn't a 1-loss team was because they played LSU. I wouldn't exactly say that the loss "didn't hurt them too badly, obviously."

---

The point is that the only reason we went and they didn't was that we were the team that had beaten them. Replace that game with a blowout win for us over ULL and a blowout loss for them to, say, USC, and VT probably goes to the NC game ahead of us.

Scheduling that tough game, and winning it, is what won us that NC. Yes, scheduling them and losing them can hurt you. But most likely, especially if the entire top 10 is scheduling quality OOC opponents, someone who scheduled those games is going to win them, and that someone is going to have an advantage over teams that scheduled crap and won.