Schools like Chattanooga, North Texas, Middle Tennessee State, Bowling Green, South Florida, etc.? Don't worry, OU schedules those guys, too. I guess I just don't see the appeal in playing mediocre teams from mediocre conferences. Big-time games against big-time schools like Ohio State, sure. I'd love to see a UT-USC regular season game. But I don't really see the excitement in scheduling a team like Washington that's a perennial doormat in a so-so conference. Is that really a challenge? Do schools outside the Big XII schedule Baylor so that they can trumpet a game against a BCS conference opponent?
Are you aware of how the BCS works? Not trying to be a dick. But the way you're talking it sounds like you really have no clue about SOS and how it matters.
No one is suggesting you have to play top-10 nonconferences teams. You have to play legitimate BCS teams instead just playing Wyoming, UTEP, and ULaMo. OU played UCLA and Alabama that year - both of those contributed to their #1 schedule strength which helped them get in despite being ranked #3 in the polls. A mediocre BCS team will help you more than a mediocre directional school.
SOS goes into the computer rankings mostly.... Yeah, it does go into voters minds also.. like the Coaches... but still it's about overall play and how good the team is. UT's SOS is fine... even if OU goes mediocre... UT will either be 1 or 2 if it remains undefeated in the regular season... http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bcs_explained.html
Cincinnati is in the Big East, a BCS conference. At this point, I'd be happy with playing *any* BCS team, it's better than lame creampuffs. So yeah, I was glad when we played Arkansas. This year and 2007 we played no BCS teams. I don't want to go back and forth with you, you obviously don't get it. Just a final simple question, and be sincere with your answer... if not, then there's no point in further discussion. I'm going to assume you're a UT fan. I went to UT myself. Are you trying to imply that you would be 100% happy with your team scheduling non-BCS creampuffs every single year? As in you would NOT be more excited as a fan in having OOC schedules similar to what USC, Florida, OU, etc do? You get more excited playing non-BCS teams?
The issue isn't really if a team goes undefeated. It's important if, like most years, you have a bunch of 1-loss teams competing for 1 or 2 spots. If you have some combo of USC, Florida, OU, Texas with 1-loss, Texas is likely in the worst position of the bunch in the computers because of the OOC schedule.
When someone says "I'm not trying to be a dick", it generally means they're about to say something dick-ish. Your post follows that trend. I'm aware of how the BCS works. I hate it as a system, but I'm aware of it. I don't think every decision in college football scheduling is based on SOS concerns, nor should it be.
I do agree with that. I'm not concerned at all about getting into the NC game this year if we go undefeated. The issue is when you have 1 loss, which is a hell of a lot more likely every year than going undefeated. That's when SOS can really help.
That's true... but I think from the Harris Poll and the Coaches Poll (USA Today) they would get the upper notch... for a few different reasons. One of them being that they started off No. 2.... the other reason would have to vary on their play in the season as well as how good of a power house team they really are. But yeah, I think the SOS mainly factors into the computer rankings, not really the polls.
When someone says things like "black is white" and "up is down" (or in your case, OU's OOCS isn't historically harder than UT's) it is hard to wonder aloud how they come to these conclusions without being a dick.
I reject the basis of your question, because I reject that OU's OOC schedule has been historically better. Last year, sure. And I reject the idea that UT schedules nothing but creampuffs. I've referenced the Utah cancellation, I've referenced Arkansas, I've referenced the Ohio State back to back. I think they have scheduled some good programs, to go along with the creampuffs (that everyone else schedules, too). Anyway, I guess I don't pass your test, which is just as well, because you've already decided that I "don't get it" and am not worth your time, rather than accepting that we have a difference of rational opinions.
In the last 5 years, OU has played 10 non-conference BCS or consistently top-tier non-BCS teams - 7 BCS teams plus TCU twice and BYU. Over that time frame, Texas has played 4 - OSU twice, TCU, and Arkansas.
I'm reading yall's disagreement... and I'm still not seeing what this has to do with anything? Who cares if OU has had a greater SOS in the past? It means nothing... it's not an easier road... the BCS has always been the same... the SOS is really not that greatly affected in the two Polls which account for 66% of the rankings.
The OOC schedule cost UT a shot at the national championship last year. It very well could this year as well if they lose a game. It cost Auburn the same in 2004. I'm not sure that means nothing.
Oh, I understand. Which is why I didn't respond in the earlier thread when you made some ridiculous statement like "OU is a classy organization".
Even some of your horn buddies back me up on that. But whatever, keep arguing that the sky isn't blue. Sometimes I forget there are some hopeless orange bloods running around here. KePow is one of the biggest UT fans I know, but he's objective at least.
Really? Was it just that? You're saying the SOS was the ONLY thing that went towards UT getting screwed in the rankings? I'm sorry, but I don't believe that.
Yes. They were virtually tied in the polls (Texas slightly ahead). The computers all edged OU a tiny bit higher because of the OOC schedule. Thus, OU ended up in the B12 Title / national title game. If Texas had played OU's non-conference schedule, they were in the title game.
How does that even make any sense then? If the computer rankings are only worth 1/3 of the ranking... and the polls together are worth 2/3....
Huh? What don't you get? If UT and OU were tied in the polls but OU was ahead in the computer rankings, then obviously OU would be ahead overall. What's so hard to understand about that?
