Well I'm sure that if you went through most conferences since 2004 you'd find a lot of losses to non-BCS conference teams. Mostly by the teams in the bottom half of the conference pecking order.
I think you'd be a little surprised to know who some of those teams beat. And we aren't talking about just any conference, we're talking about a conference that is perceived to be so much better than all others that teams who lose twice in it can still win the NC. This is the conference that annually gets a pass on scheduling as a whole because it is considered 'too tough' top to bottom.
It's not just the SEC that gets a pass on scheduling non-conf opponents. It's every conference that gets a pass on scheduling. It's become accepted that teams are rarely going to take on a team out of conference that is a top team. Sure there are exceptions and the funny thing is that they get no points for doing it, no extra credit awarded to any team for tough out of conference losses, it's a loss. OU loses to at the time a top 25 BYU without it's starting QB in the 2nd half and loses by 1 point. goes to Miami and loses again by 1 point and again without Bradford...reward ...hello #20, lose again to Texas and goodbye top 25.
Yea, Tennessee only schedules loser programs like Cal, UCLA, Notre Dame... :wink: :wink: :wink: 8) Just a joke... don't get your boxers in a wad! 8)
Tenn is certainly one of the exceptions as are Ohio State, Michigan and USC and there are others. But the point is that no extra credit is given to risking a loss with a good out of confernce opponent. If you go 4-0 vs patsies vs a team that goes 3-1 vs a good out of conference slate, the 4-0 team slides up the ratings ladder.
I believe Alabama picks up a series with Penn State starting next year. I've often commended UT (the one with balls) for scheduling noncon games. There are others though who continue to hide behind the mystique of the 'conference power/supremacy'. As you yourself said.. you could make that case with any conference.. so why the pass? It's not right and you know it. The system perpetuates itself and grossly excludes others.
Corey, If Boise State had to play a Pac 10 schedule all year rather than playing one Pac 10 school (Oregon), do you think they would go undefeated? If they had to play a Big 10, Big 12, or SEC schedule??? If Boise State thinks they are getting a bad deal, let them jump out of the WAC. They can be an independent just like Notre Dame. They can schedule anyone they want to play.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but one thing I would speculate is that very few so-called elite teams would want to gamble on a possible out-of-conference loss by scheduling Boise State. Thus, as an independent, they might be doomed to a similar schedule.
Tom, I'm not sure. I sincerely believe they would stand as good a chance of being no wore than #2. If they were in the Pac10, I think/believe that they would be in the running for the title. What we do know is that if they won the Pac10 but had 1 loss, they wouldn't get to play for the title anyway.
Then let them negotiate themselves into a power conference. That PAC 10 has less schools than any other BCS conference. I just have a problem with a school that plays mostly unranked opponents and is shocked to be left on the outside looking in.
It's why there will never be a solution for the Boise State's of the world till there is a playoff and it needs to be a 16 team playoff. Then they get in and have the same shot as everybody. Although I do anticipate some grumbling that they aren't seeded fairly.
Tom, I hear ya, but here's what I have a problem with.. Boise schedules aggressively. They WILL play you, just pick up the phone. They drop Oregon after this year and I believe they replace them with Virginia Tech. These guys realize their conference is weaker than the majors. I get that. They are right. The problem is.. how weak.. as Terry pointed out, he thinks that conference is on the Samford level (still just as laughable).. and Terry is a knowledgeable football fan. He is far from the only person who thinks that I am sure. Boise tries to get the best teams it can, they can't control their conference.. The 'power conference' teams are scheduling pussies with shocking regularity (your Vols are a massive exception to the btw), and they aren't called to the carpet for it. My other beef is with this alleged supremacy in level of competition in other conferences. The SEC has, annually, 2 top flight teams.. about 2 or 3 good teams and then there's the rest. The beef is how good 'the rest' are.. People act like Miss State would win the WAC (they'd finish near or at the bottom in the WAC too kids). The difference really isn't all that great. What fans of the super conferences don't seem to understand, or remember, is how the WAC was treated when the move to the super conference took place. The WAC was there hand in hand with you guys creating a conference with 2 divisions and a title game. "just wait" they were told.. and wait they did.. only to realize they were left out. This moment of clarity (that they were lied to by the BCS/Alliance conferences) is what led to the Mountain West Conference. Those schools realized these bloated pig of a monstrosity would never play for anything that mattered so they formed the MWC. I can't believe that I would have to tell southerners how folks in a region can hold a grudge and a whole lot of mistrust when they feel they have been done wrong. Terry, I agree with you entirely.. and while you might be right about the bitching.. it would be a whole lot better as at least they'd be in.