MSU v ND

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I love college football fans, they always pump up their teams schedule, and crap on everyone elses.

every good teams schedule basically consists of 1 or 2 tough games, maybe 2 games that will be competitive, and the rest are all cake. I don't care how hard or difficult you think a teams conference is. Also, there are several teams around the nation that constantly play tough non-conference games because of their name, USC and ND are two of those teams, but there are a few others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fresno State.

Many times those schedules are made a couple years in advance. So someone who may have been tough when the game was scheduled might've fallen a bit.

Then there are the teams that schedule tough OOC opponents, but only at home.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I cited USC which historically is known for playing in a "cake" conference

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your criteria for being a 'cake' conference? Especially in regards to playing in one.

b

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I cited USC which historically is known for playing in a "cake" conference

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your criteria for being a 'cake' conference? Especially in regards to playing in one.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually Bar Stool Pundits provide me with me with misguided public perception. They ignore how Oregon, Cal, UCLA, ASU, Oregon St. have all been very good teams at points for the past 5 years.

Do they common folk actually consider USC to have an equal schedule to a BigX/BigXII/SEC schedule?

[damaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
ND schedule rankings by Sagarin

'06 (through 1/3) #1
'05 #14
'04 #5
'03 #1
'02 #14
'01 #14
'00 #36

With the exception of the year 2000, it looks like ND's schedule is anything but a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, these count bowl opponents. I think ND's last year was in the 30's before it got OSU.

Another thing which I wonder about: SOS doesn't find there to be a difference in playing, say, 6 12-0 teams and 6 0-12 teams, and playing 12 6-6 teams, yet the practical result is that one schedule is much harder than the other.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ND schedule rankings by Sagarin

'06 (through 1/3) #1
'05 #14
'04 #5
'03 #1
'02 #14
'01 #14
'00 #36

With the exception of the year 2000, it looks like ND's schedule is anything but a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, these count bowl opponents. I think ND's last year was in the 30's before it got OSU.

Another thing which I wonder about: SOS doesn't find there to be a difference in playing, say, 6 12-0 teams and 6 0-12 teams, and playing 12 6-6 teams, yet the practical result is that one schedule is much harder than the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume if you're a 6-6 team the 2nd is much harder?

But I don't really see your point. Your example is far too extreme and unrealistic. If you're an average team you get essentially every week off in the first scenario. You hammer horrible teams, while good ones hammer you and in the 2nd you play 12 competitive games.

But if you're a 10+ win team. This is v v different since the first schedule is much much much harder since you'll play 6 competitive games and 6 who cares while in the 2nd you play 12 marginally uncompetitive games with unranked teams.

[damaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ND schedule rankings by Sagarin

'06 (through 1/3) #1
'05 #14
'04 #5
'03 #1
'02 #14
'01 #14
'00 #36

With the exception of the year 2000, it looks like ND's schedule is anything but a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, these count bowl opponents. I think ND's last year was in the 30's before it got OSU.

Another thing which I wonder about: SOS doesn't find there to be a difference in playing, say, 6 12-0 teams and 6 0-12 teams, and playing 12 6-6 teams, yet the practical result is that one schedule is much harder than the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume if you're a 6-6 team the 2nd is much harder?

But I don't really see your point. Your example is far too extreme and unrealistic. If you're an average team you get essentially every week off in the first scenario. You hammer horrible teams, while good ones hammer you and in the 2nd you play 12 competitive games.

But if you're a 10+ win team. This is v v different since the first schedule is much much much harder since you'll play 6 competitive games and 6 who cares while in the 2nd you play 12 marginally uncompetitive games with unranked teams.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is basically what someone on another board pointed out. Which schedule is worse depends a great deal on who you are. And yes, my argument is extreme, but that was just to make the point that all schedules of equal value under these systems are not created equally. My bigger complaint is that they factor in the whole schedule, even though we've played 4 games. So ND gets credit for having USC, for example, and Purdue at 4-0 at this point (even though Purdue is not good). So it's stupid to say ND #1 schedule when they've got cupcake city coming up until USC.

Also, completely unrelated but...

[Thremp]

Its just as stupid to say they have a cake schedule as well.

[Troy Smith]

[ QUOTE ]
Its just as stupid to say they have a cake schedule as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that they have a cake schedule, they just only beat cake opponents, and get creamed by anyone good (and sometimes only half decent). If ND joined the big 10, they'd be lucky to get higher than 3rd in the conference.

[Case Closed]

damaniac,

That picture rules so hard. That made my day.

[Dudd]

What I want to know is, how did Javon Ringer pull guard duty? What's he going to do?