Well... here's how you do it ... 2015 SOS Seems to me Art Briles (and most of his brothers in the XII) are taking the low road... easy sched to pad the resume. Hope it backfires on them just like last year!
Well let me go ahead and order a barrel of Crown Royal now in preparation for next season if we are playing the 3rd toughest schedule, looks like I'm going to need it to drown out my tears.... :?
Western Carolina, Ball State, Nevada....those are some tough cookies. Notre Dame, CAL, and Rice...yeah that's a lot weaker.
OK so Miami has Bethune Cookman, FAU and Cincy....along with Neb. 1 power 5 conf non-conf team. the other 3 minor conferences. Texas has 2 Power 5 conference teams and 1 minor conference team and then their conference schedule. Oh well if the basic premise is the B12 sucks then it doesn't really matter who we schedule in the non-conf apparently. Irish have 9 Power 5 conf teams, 3 non-power 5 teams 6 of the 9 are ACC opponents just like Miami. The other 3 are Stanford, Texas and USC. So you'd have to say our 9 "conference" games are at least as good as Miami's 8 conference games + Neb for their 9 power 5 games. So lets look at the remaining 3 Navy about a push with Cincy. Temple better than Bethune Cookman or FAU UMass probably about equal with Bethune Cookman or FAU. So Miami #3 and ND #61...yeah that makes sense.
Geez Terry I was mostly pointing at the Baylor Cubs and Fort Worth Toads. And BTW, if you want to bring up A&M's sched it seems only fair to mention that we open with Arizona St... I'd say that makes your comparison just about equal... I'm sure you'd like to trade Alabama for Iowa St, LSU for Kansas, and Auburn for Texas Tick???
Well these lists always irritate me. You play the schedule you have. Everybody has patsy's...current trend is for a 4 non-conf games plus conference schedule. In the current environment the default assumption is if you play in the SEC you are playing a tough schedule. If you don't play in the SEC your conference is weak and thus your conference schedule is weak and your overall schedule weak.
No worries Terry everyone has an agenda, the ranking is probably setting up another story for the author at the expense of his data. But, it's still Nebraska :lol:
Isn't that apples & oranges? Maybe I missed your point, but shouldn't you be comparing Vanderbilt, Kentucky, and Mississippi to those 3 B12 teams?
Well Sid... we don't play Kentucky so I guess that one would definitely be irrelevant. :? While Ole Miss certainly didn't live up to their billing, I'd gladly trade any of the three named XII schools for the Rebs if you are talking about a better chance of winning. Vanderbilt... about right Apologies. I should have said "I'll trade ANY three games on Texas' schedule for Bama, L$U and Auburn and be sure I'd gotten the easier end of it." The real problem with any list like this is all the data comes from last year. In the pros that has some legitimacy, but in the college game personnel is so different from year to year it loses a lot of its steam. HOWEVER... I find it hard to even consider letting Art Briles near a podium when you see he'll only face 3 teams that were ranked, and have a sub 50% winning percentage.
FWIW, I didn't read into the original poke as a stick aimed at tu. Of all the things I dislike about the horns, their scheduling isn't one of them. They're usually one of the top-flight schedules in cfb on an annual basis, right up there with the PAC. FWIW2, the article freely admitted this is not how he calculates strength of schedule, but the way the NCAA does it. I don't think much, except fodder for trash talk, can be derived from this. Thus, BU, if you lose a game with, AGAIN, a weak-ass schedule, you won't get in AGAIN.