Running bowl thread

The SEC non-conference record is annually built on beating up nobodies and then bragging about three "marquee" wins over shitty ACC teams and a win over West Virginia.

The Big East has a great win-loss nonconference record as well -- what does it mean if you don't play anyone?

 

"This is why the BCS is so great! We get some finality about a national championship, but there is still so much to talk about! That is what makes college football so great!!! No other sport invokes this much passion!!!"
- IDIOT BCS FLACK

 

If you don't think rankings mean anything, then why did you bring it up?

 

I didn't, but thank you.

Follow the thread and maybe you won't make clueless statements.

 

My apologies, but it sure reads like you brought it up.

You mentioned that Florida and Alabama had only beaten one and two ranked opponents, to make a point that they didn't really play a tougher schedule.

Then when someone pointed out the strength of schedule (based on rankings) you said it didn't matter. Just trying to understand where you're coming from.

 

Nobodies from conferences like the WAC, right?

If Alabama played a non-conference schedule of Oregon, Miami of Ohio, Bowling Green and Tulsa, you'd accuse them of playing nobodies. Hell, Alabama DID play a non-conference schedule of Va. Tech, North Texas, FIU and a I-AA, and you accuse them of playing nobodies.

And yet that's basically who Boise did play -- trade the ACC for the Pac-10, and the Sun Belt for the MAC, and add Tulsa because they got an extra game this year.

And so you're, again, trying to make the case that the WAC and the SEC are the same. And making a damn fool of yourself doing so.

 

Simple answer: Yes, Alabama played a more impressive schedule So what?

If there's enough playoff spots for all the undefeated teams, it doesn't matter.
If one team is undefeated and another isn't, all the schedule difference in the world doesn't change that.

 

The WAC would be a huge upgrade over the nonconference schedules crafted together by teams from the SEC.

Hell, playing a few teams from the MAC would be a huge upgrade for some of those teams.....

 

And yet, after all the games are played and the "nobodies" have been crushed, you're still left with Alabama playing the 4th-toughest schedule and Florida the 8th. And you have an SEC bottom feeder like Kentucky that would be the FOURTH toughest team on Boise's schedule.

Magical, ain't it?

Nonsense. Schedule difference is the bleeping REASON these teams are undefeated. It's staggering that this needs to be explained.

 

I understand it's the reason. I just don't care. Winning games is the point of playing a football season. Everything else is tiebreakers and columnfodder.

 

No, one of our resident SEC fanboys was going on and on about how these "teams with only one elite win" shouldn't be considered on the same level as teams who play this "tough grind".....

My point was simple - surely if you are an "elite win" on someone's schedule you'd at least be in the top 25 of the final BCS and well by that standard, Florida has exactly the same amount of "elite wins" as Boise State and only one less than Texas --

 

And UF is not playing in the title game --- same as Boise.

I have no problem with either.