Therein lies the issue KP, we are NOT trying to determine who has the toughest strength of schedule. We are trying to determine the championship team. If SOS were the compelling factor, then Texas A&M and ND would be playing for the title at least according to the criteria the NCAA uses. It simply doesn't follow that the team that plays the toughest schedule is the best team.....the problem lies when we limit the contest to 2 teams and eliminate other worthy participants based upon something other than their success on the field. No one can tell me that simply because they played a "tougher" schedule, that Oregon or Auburn are superior teams than is TCU.....perhaps some can speculate, but why speculate....why not let them play, anything short is a beauty contest. The reason we want our teams to participate is a very simple one.....it is the only game in town.
y'all can knock the Mountain West schedule all you want but it isn't like a lot of people are beating them in bowl games. I believe that's what we were citing just a minute ago, right?? Bowl games... Since ESPN started giving out that bowl trophy to the conferences.. who has the highest winning percentage? Oh that's right... bowl games count.. just not THOSE bowl games because they play in them and not the SEC... oh.. and the bowl games between Mountain West teams and SEC teams don't count because the SEC team wasn't taking them serious... Jesus..
FYI, I'm pretty sure the Mountain West has lost 1 bowl game this year.. The team that lost is leaving to the Pac10, and the team that beat them is joining the Mountain West... That's honestly about right and I've been trying to tell ya guys this for some time. For the past 4 or 5 years, they've been kicking our (Pac10) ass at least as much as we're kicking theirs.. To my fine southern brethren on this snowy Christmas day, I tell ya... y'all better recognize before you wind up in another Sugar Bowl making excuses.
T, But that is where this thread started. The Big 10 schools supposedly had a tougher schedule because they had fewer undefeated seasons than the SEC. That is not my argument, that was Kesley's position.
KP, I would interpret Kes's input somewhat differently....Kes's data suggested to me that there are a number of ways to assess the difficulty of one's schedule....subject to the interpreter. Kes put forth one assessment that may differ from the SEC view.....but nonetheless, a reasonable assessment. I think that we can agree on that.... Any system that seeks to select a champion wherein one of the primary determinants is largely subjective is flawed and clearly inferior to one where on the field alternatives exist....why not let them play?
KP, got it, just wanted to clarify...... Interesting thing interpretations can be.....very subjective. Individuals see the same set of facts and react/respond differently.....Kes was one that actually didn't provide any interpretation that I could see, just made a factual statement was questioned about it and then provided facts that validated his statement.... Looking forward to the Tide-Sparty showdown...Sparty will miss Cunningham for sure, but still expect an excellent game....as a Big 10 fan, it looks like I'm going to have to invest in a few extra TVs
I guess then that the SEC East was a beast of a division this year because all of the members beat each other up.....yeah.....that was it.
T, I am looking forward to seeing the game as well as the others. Friday and Saturday are going to prime.
kp - my intent was to poke a stick at the local swamp wildlife, with a set of statistics that hasn't been discussed before. my position is that there is usually NO clear favorite on which conference is the toughest and would put the PAC and Big-10 on par with the SEC most years, and some years above. it was an attempt at balancing some of the chest-thumping constantly coming from the other side of the aisle and have some fun.
A win by Oregon would do a lot to cool off all that SEC is the best talk......don't ya think? You guys act like you don't ever watch or read the national sports media and really can't remember at all who has won the last 4 national championships. OK then......the chance is right there this year.....on the field......in a PAC 10 state. Let's see it..... :wink: 8)
No, no at all......in fact one might argue based upon the available evidence that it might increase both in frequency and intensity. I for one am convinced that the only thing that would cool off the "SEC is the best" talk around here is, God forbid, nuclear armageddon.....seriously. I think that you'd find the vast majority of contributors here to be quite well versed in the national sports scene, read widely a great deal of the available literature from a wide array of sources and quite capable of interpretation and reaching our own conclusions.....what we don't have is a compelling need to cram our opinions down somebody else's throat......incessantly.
Just "poking fun" back BT. That wouldn't be possible you know if the SEC hadn't done those things and the media hadn't continued to say those things about what the SEC has done.
BT, I have tried... Lord knows I have tried. Bill and Terry have now spoken up and it makes no difference. The only way to keep the peace here is: Everyone totally ignore Dave. When nobody responds, he will simply be a non-issue.
I know you have and Bill and TOK as well.....you're right. It makes no difference.....it really is a shame when there is one so self-absorbed that he can gain some measure of self-satisfaction at the expense of all others.....I'll take your advice.
That was from Kes...... So he did....and I responded. I see an impossible pattern developing here and you're right....it's no fun. Poke away I guess...... :roll: