November 14, 2005
Who has the toughest schedule for 2005?
At the end of the season last year, we looked back at the official NCAA stats (as questionable as they may be) and found that Auburn had the toughest schedule last year. So, who has the toughest schedule this season?
NCAA Toughest Schedule (as per the NCAA - pdf) through 11/12/2005
1. Oklahoma
2. Michigan
3. Ohio St.
4. Stanford
5. Arkansas
6. North Carolina
7. Kansas
8. South Fla.
9. Temple
10. Penn St.
11. Minnesota
12. Florida
13. South Carolina
14. Tennessee
14. Virginia Tech
16. Texas A&M
17. Northwestern
18. Southern California
19. Oklahoma St.
19. Washington St.
21. Georgia Tech
22. Arizona
23. North Carolina St.
24. Texas
25. Auburn
Comments:
Derek Scruggs said:
posted on November 14, 2005 8:24 PM — 65.101.219.86 — link — abuse?
I was about to be impressed that Northwestern was #17 until I saw that Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State are all in the top 10, and they all beat NU. Oh well. Then again, I guess our winning record contributes to their strengh-of-schedule ratings, but that's pretty lame.
deo in sin city said:
posted on November 14, 2005 9:21 PM — 68.108.117.180 — link — abuse?
GERALD......
You still crying over last year.....
Man get over it, what's done is done. Auburn got left out that year, period..... It's not SC's fault if voters feel that Oklahoma would play against SC than Auburn..... I think it was beating the same auburn team, with the same players, the previous year made their mind up..... I'm pretty sure that they would have wished for auburn to go then, after that oklahoma spanking, but what can you do.?????
If you're looking to cry to someone, look to cry to the voters who voted for oklahoma instead of auburn..... I think it wouldn't have mattered anyways, auburn would have probably still lost with the exact same score the previous year. USC had better offense, and pretty darn good defense. Auburn only had defense period.......
FIGHT ON MEN of TROY.....
Trouty said:
posted on November 14, 2005 9:36 PM — 68.186.113.11 — link — abuse?
Yup Gerald u hit it right on your nogin. Thats why everybody besides southern folk like yourself believe u guys are *******. You still think Auburn had a chance of beating SC last year. Witch is just not the case lol. COme back when SC loses than we can talk about what ifs
JT said:
posted on November 14, 2005 10:35 PM — 63.228.165.18 — link — abuse?
TCU didn't make the list, but they bid beat #1 on the list. Oklahoma has 3 losses: TCU (l-loss team), UCLA (1-loss team), and Texas (undefeated). Why are the human polls being so tough on the Sooners? Is it simply because a well-executing Horned Frog team dismantled the 7th-ranked Sooners on their home field to open the season?
Yet, if you have 3 losses -- to #2, #11, and #14 in the BCS and play in a major conference -- how can you be THAT bad? The only reasons the Sooners muster #25 in the BCS are the computer systems who have them an average of 19th.
Thanks a lot voters for being stupid. Just because the Sooners aren't in a title race this year doesn't mean that they are worse than Florida or South Carolina.
war eagle 2004 said:
posted on November 14, 2005 11:21 PM — 67.166.240.114 — link — abuse?
i thought they basicaly just said that auburn was better than usc last year.why didnt any of the voters get these stats.what a joke.2 undefeated seasons in 11 years with no nc at least nationaly recongnized.war damn eagle anyway.I dont know why more women arent into college football its just like a damn beauty paget.The sec is going 7-0 this year in bowl games.
Billy Rowe said:
posted on November 14, 2005 11:30 PM — 68.0.79.27 — link — abuse?
How in the world could Oklahoma have the toughest schedua!!! Ther in the big 12 for god sake. They might have two legetimate tough games, texas and maybe a texas tech or something. I think arkansas should be on the top of the list. Or maybe i'm just trying to justify a 3-6 record, ouch!!! Go HOGS.
ND_Fan said:
posted on November 15, 2005 6:25 AM — 68.123.110.60 — link — abuse?
Notre Dame's schedule was supposed to be tough. Pre-season it was one of the toughest. But then again, ND is the team that beat USC for all but 10 seconds of a football game. That's why they're in everyone's top 25. You can be a good team and have a weak schedule. After all, if you look at how the games have played out-- the toughest team USC has played has been Notre Dame. -J.V.R.
Jeremy said:
posted on November 15, 2005 6:53 AM — 69.19.14.17 — link — abuse?
Notre Dame has always been a waste of time. They are one of the major reasons why there isn't a playoff system. Everyone would just how bad they really are. Maybe they can pick up a couple of division two teams to play next year and have a undefeated season. That is, if they pick carefully.
Peter said:
posted on November 15, 2005 9:12 AM — 63.121.107.66 — link — abuse?
Oklawho number #1? With the exception of Texas, who in the Weak 12 Conference did they really played that mattered? What about LSU? Last I saw, they beat currently ranked Alabama, Auburn, Florida, and then ranked Arizona St. That should at least garnish them considerations for your top 25 list.
Hippster in KC said:
posted on November 15, 2005 10:13 AM — 12.4.181.2 — link — abuse?
Gerald,
What do people down south think about Auburn's non-conference schedule last year? Or Alabama's this year? I know, I know, it doesn't matter because winning the SEC is so incredibly impossibly difficult toughest conference in America unbelievable. I think Auburn got screwed last year, but they shouldn't have played that baby schedule.
It's not ND's fault that Pitt, Purdue, Washington, and Tennesse all ended up sucking this year. That schedule looked murderous this summer. They also opened with four out of five on the road, while most schools were still paying Florida International and Central Michigan at home.
I think ND gets too much credit for its schedule, but they just got lucky. They don't put three home game cupcakes on the schedule every year.
Bill Hartigan said:
posted on November 15, 2005 11:54 AM — 172.129.105.139 — link — abuse?
Hmmmm! Notre Dame's schedule NOT the toughest, or in the Top-3?? That's a first, at least spanning the last 60 or 70 years! Looks like this list was compiled in about two minutes by some hung-over, chain-smoking Springer-watcher. Funny how then high-rated MSU imploded after upsetting Irish; Pitt took a month to start living up to its preseason potential. Didn't a school based in Ann Arbor play them? And all the others have the ND game circled....for a dozen years. USC will play 6 ranked teams this year, and will beat them all. End of discussion from the SEC-gallery, with their plodding, predictable, and offensive offenses. Their defenses should be highly rated based on the incestuous scheduling of that con-ference. Perhaps if that conference admitted that the Pac-10 has been so far ahead of them for so long, they'd move ahead. Then again, that would take some thought. Any wonder why USC proudly calls itself "Notre Dame West."
Nick said:
posted on November 15, 2005 12:27 PM — 70.181.68.80 — link — abuse?
Go Hogs???? Those losers who SC scored 70 points against using mostly their 3rd team? The SEC has only 2 legitimate teams who have a chance of winning a bowl game.
The Pac 10 has at least 6 teams who can beat ND any time easily. And, at least in the Pac 10 stadiums, they cut the grass more than once a season!
bufffan said:
posted on November 15, 2005 12:42 PM — 66.47.18.170 — link — abuse?
The strength of schedule formula is based purely on opponents' records. So playing a really bad team has as large a negative impact as playing a really good team has positive impact. In LSU's case, playing Mississippi State and North Texas basically negates the strength of playing Auburn and Florida.
Oklahoma, on the other hand, has played nobody truely awful (the worst teams, record wise, were 4-6 Baylor and 4-6 Kansas State), and 3 top 15 teams. Their non-conference schedule has a combined record of 25-6. By contrast, LSU's non-conference lineup was a combined 14-15, and HALF of those wins were by a I-AA school. Their I-A non-conference opponents were a combined 7-12.
Gerald said:
posted on November 15, 2005 1:08 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
Hello:
Jeremy, do not get me wrong, I am a closet Notre Dame fan. First off, playing a good team tough doesn't mean squat. Bad teams play good teams tough every year! Heck, bad teams BEAT good teams every year! What is meaningful is following up your good showing against that good team all year long. That is what Arizona State failed to do after they played well against LSU and USC, what Arizona failed to do after they played well against USC and beat UCLA, and what Michigan State failed to do after they beat you guys.
Second, so Notre Dame is a good team. So what? There are lots of good teams this year. The issue is who is most deserving to get one of those at - large bids. No way a team that played only 2 major college teams with a winning record (losing one of them) and also lost to a team that will have a losing record and will probably fire their coach on Saturday should get an at - large bid over the likes of Virginia Tech, Oregon, UCLA, Penn State, Ohio State, and whoever emerges from the SEC with less than 2 losses (Auburn, Alabama, LSU, and UGA could all finish 9 - 2, and furthermore that seems to be the most likely scenario at this point). Notre Dame will actually have played AND beaten fewer good teams than will the Big East champ, whether that champ is West Virginia, Louisville, OR South Florida! The worst part about it is that the very same media members who were trashing Auburn's schedule last year aren't even mentioning Notre Dame's. That just proves that the media isn't even trying to be fair. They don't care about who played the toughest teams, who has the best players and coaches, or even who has the best record! It is all about where a team is located and what style of football they play.
Again, for the record I believe that Notre Dame could beat all but 5 or 6 teams in the country. Good for them! I just think that in order to get a BCS bowl, you have to prove it, and Notre Dame hasn't. Heck, Ty Willingham probably would have gotten them to 8 wins this year! For all the vitriol aimed at the Willingham, he only lost 1 game to a losing team his entire time there. Weis has matched that already. I wonder how Weis would have fared with Carlyle Holiday as his starting QB against Michigan, FSU, 10 win Maryland, Boston College, the last good Air Force team, and the Pitt team that had Larry Fitzgerald, and no receivers except a converted quarterback and a couple of true freshmen. Or his next year having to juggle Carlyle Holiday and true freshman Brady Quinn after losing your only playmaker on offense and 4 starting offensive linemen. Don't get me wrong, Weis is a better coach and recruiter than Willingham, but so are the coaches at the other teams that would get left out if Notre Dame grabs an at large bid.
Tom Mac said:
posted on November 15, 2005 1:15 PM — 209.178.81.229 — link — abuse?
Coming into this year ND had the toughest schedule. Although some of the teams they played had poor years (TENN,MICH and Purdue) they shouldn't be faulted. All of their wins have been convincing and they're totally worthy of their ranking. Show me a conference in the entire country where ND wouldn't finish in the top 2. Also check out next year when they play USC, Penn St. Michigan, etc. Year in and year out they schedule top tier opponents.
Gerald said:
posted on November 15, 2005 1:39 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
deo in sin city:
I will stop crying over last year when USC stops crying over the year before. At least USC got to share the title with a team that had the same record with more wins against the top 10, 15, and 25 and who lost to a much better team in LSU. Auburn had the same record, more wins against the top 10, 15, and 25 and got NOTHING!
And please quit it with the "we played the same team from last year and beat them" nonsense. You speak as if Auburn went 11 - 1 that year. They were 8 - 5 with losses to LSU, UGA, Ole Miss, and 7 - 5 Georgia Tech. THEY WERE NOT THE SAME TEAM! They did the same thing that USC did between going 6 - 6 and 10 - 2 ... they hired a good offensive coordinator! When USC beat Auburn, it was right after Petrino had left for Louisville because Tommy Tuberville wanted to call the plays (which was the same reason why he ran off another good offensive coordinator in Leo Mazzone, who now works for former USC assistant Ed Orgeron at Ole Miss).
Tuberville "promoted" his offensive line coach to offensive coordinator, but was really running the show himself, similar to the Minnesota Vikings disaster this season. THAT was why they started out 0 - 2 that season, scoring a combined total of 3 points, and didn't turn things around until they had someone else start gameplanning and calling plays. And THAT was why Auburn almost fired him to bring back Petrino.
And please quit it with the "they didn't score enough points." First of all, that was the same thing they said about Alabama in 1991, Nebraska in 1994 and 1995, Tennessee in 1998, Oklahoma in 2000, LSU in 2001, and Ohio State in 2002, and for that matter Notre Dame in 1992 when they beat FSU but were shut out of the title game. They all beat higher scoring teams with the fancy spread and pro - style offenses to win national titles. Second of all, it wasn't true. How could it have been if RB Ronnie Brown went #2, RB Carnell Williams went #5, and QB Jason Campbell went #26? Furthermore, had LT Marcus McNeill come out, he would have been the first OL off the board, which he will be this year?
Furthermore, it wasn't true anyway. Auburn scored 31, 43, 33, 34, 52, 38, 42, 35, and 38 points last year; 9 of their 13 games. In the 2 of the 4 games that they were held under 31 points, they still scored 24 and 21. A lot of people think that just because a passing team scores 50 points a game and a ball control team scores 30 points a game, it automatically means that the passing team would outscore the ball control team were they to play. WRONG! It is a different style of play, and it is about who has the best athletes for the style of ball that you are playing. If you want proof, go to the examples that I listed above. Even if you are going to attribute "luck" to some of those ball control teams - i.e. OSU versus Miami - in most of the rest of those games the ball control team DOMINATED.
If you are a ball control team, you don't need a prototypical NFL QB, all those receivers, and a do - everything RB. All you need is a mobile QB who can convert 3rd downs (Campbell), an every - down back (Williams), a change of pace back with some versatility (Brown), and some capable targets, which Auburn had TE and WR.
It would have been a great game to see had they matched up a great ball control team in Auburn against a great wide open team in USC. It might have been a classic remembered for the ages like Miami versus Nebraska in 1984. But instead the media made sure to match up a great passing team against a sham one. Heck, even when OU won their 2000 national title, they only scored 13 points despite forcing a million turnovers! What has that OU offense EVER done in any big game other than Texas? And they were being led by a QB with no arm on two bad knees. I still remember the previous season when that great OU offense needed a fake punt in the 4th quarter to beat 3 - 8 Alabama 20 - 10. The game everybody wanted to see, right? Maybe it was the game the media wanted USC to win ...
LA said:
posted on November 15, 2005 2:27 PM — 64.219.133.155 — link — abuse?
Hey kids. It doesn't matter where you are in the BCS, AP, USA today, ESPN, or your fraternity brothers' poll. Its the cummulative win/loss records of your opponents. It doesn't matter how tough your conference is, your division is, or how dense you are. There's a reason a link was provided to the NCAA pdf. Why don't you all check it out before you start having a pissing contest and measuring your *****? The teams at the top have played teams that have more wins than losses, pure and simple. Or did you all not go far enough in college to learn how to take percentages?
Michael(NOV) said:
posted on November 15, 2005 2:30 PM — 68.52.29.234 — link — abuse?
I guess Tennessee playing 5 Top 10 teams doesn't get them any higher than #14. How much tougher can you get than Notre Dame, Alabama, Georgia, LSU, and Florida? You can add South Carolina in there as well. This schedule is absolutely brutal. Looking at who the other teams have played shouldn't play that big of a role because USC plays very few worthy opponents and outside of Ohio St, Texas doesn't play anyone near the top of the rankings and those are your #1 and #2 ranked teams. Consider Auburn last year and they were left out despite the toughest schedule in the nation over 2 teams that didn't have tough schedules.
Felipe said:
posted on November 15, 2005 2:43 PM — 68.198.114.186 — link — abuse?
Hey JT
Did you say that Oklahoma plays in a major conference? Name another good team in the Big 12 other than Texas? Noone other than Texas tech, and thats because they've played cupcakes all season. Watch wehen USC lights up TExas this Rose Bowl, and you'll get another reason why teams from the Big 12 are overrated: THERE CONFERENCE SUCKSFan of the Game said:
posted on November 15, 2005 2:48 PM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
I am not sure what constitutes a "tough" schedule after seeing these rankings. I am a big fan of the Big 12, but this is a very down year for the conference. I can't believe Texas made the list. They have only played 3 teams that could be considered good, Ohio St.,Texas Tech and .......Oh well, only 2 teams. Neither of which are great and both seemingly overrated. Unless they are getting credit for playing with themselves they don't have a tough schedule. I would guess that USC, Auburn, LSU, Alabama, Va. Tech, Miami, Oregon, Cal and Penn State could have posted a perfect record against the same schedule. Texas is a good team though, just ask Mack Brown.
Sean said:
posted on November 15, 2005 2:49 PM — 170.148.10.22 — link — abuse?
To all the Notre Dame Haters out there who say they have only played 3 top 10 teams. Maybe you should have looked at the pre-season polls before you complain about them being in the top 10. 6 of their 11 games were against teams that were ranked in the top 20 pre-season polls. USC, Tenn, Michigan, Mich St, Pitt, Purdue. Don't blame the Irish for teams not playing up to their "potential" Go Irish!!
WDKatie said:
posted on November 15, 2005 2:54 PM — 63.171.3.2 — link — abuse?
boys, boys, boys. As my father used to say, anyone can win on any given day.
Yes, it would have been nice if AU had played in the NC but the voters will be voters and I still believe we shouldn't have preseason rankings and we should have playoffs.
If you had looked at stregnth of schedule for AU this time last year, I believe we were ranked 9th. And USC and OK were WAY down the list.
But this is this year and that was last year. I think USC and Texas are the best teams in the nation - BUT I still think there should be playoffs.
Here's the complete listing if you want to see it:
http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/Internet/toughest%20schedule/ia_9games_cumm.pdf
Notice Miami is 45 and Bama is 47........ things that make ya go hmmmmmmLeftovers said:
posted on November 15, 2005 3:01 PM — 205.143.204.102 — link — abuse?
ND_Fan-ND has played 3 teams with a winning record lossing 2 of them (3rd being Navy). Who cares if their schedule was 'supposta be tough'? They blew it against the ONLY two tough (which can be disputed cause MSU is done) teams they played. No way should ND deserve a BCS bid. However i would love to see ND play against Miami, VT, or LSU in the Orange Bowl so they will get their 3rd loss against winning records this season. Actually, maybe they can play South Florida in a bcs bowl and lose, that would be great.
sean said:
posted on November 15, 2005 3:14 PM — 207.103.12.2 — link — abuse?
Jeremy
Notre Dame is a waste of time!? are you serious
#4 #1 Miami 31-30#2 #1 Florida State 31-24
#8 #22 Penn State 17-16
Notre dame holds the the second most wins right after Michigan and has turned out some of the best player and Brady Quinn is a Heisman CanidateWaste of Time I think not
Charlie said:
posted on November 15, 2005 4:01 PM — 167.88.200.30 — link — abuse?
Yea ND fans, keep it coming...
"ND is the team that beat USC for all but 10 seconds of a football game"
They beat you, what about that dont you understand? I have never seen anyone cry moral victory more than you guys. A loss is a loss and you have 2! Plenty of teams gave SC close games last year too, should they be waving the "almost victory" flag? How about the "we got cheated" flag? Or better yet, the "we were winning for all but 10 mins" flag
The fact that SC came back and beat you in your house says a lot more about how great the trojans are then how good you think you are.
Gerald said:
posted on November 15, 2005 4:06 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
Hippster in KC:
Yeah, so Auburn had an easy nonconference schedule. Who has Cal ever played out of conference? Yet that didn't stop them from complaining that they deserved to go to the Rose Bowl last year, or for the media from taking up their cause. Don't buy this nonconference schedule B.S. It is all about the media making excuses for deciding which teams to favor and disfavor. The media didn't care about strength of schedule when FSU was running through the glorified mid - major ACC in the 1990s. Had Auburn scheduled 3 6 - 5 mid - major teams, do you honestly think that would have made the media jump them over OU or USC if the fact that they played more top 10, 15, and 25 teams didn't?
For the record, I am NOT saying that Auburn should have been ranked higher than USC. That would be ... idiotic. I am only saying that Auburn deserved the same deal that USC got. Can any of you EVER envision a scenario where USC goes undefeated and not get a national title? Of course not, because they play in the PAC - 10, are in L.A., and have a pro - style offense. If the media had their way, a team like that would win the national title every year, and everyone else would have to be happy with second place, which is what they want SEC fans to settle for. Pardon SEC fans if they feel differently.
I know that it is not Notre Dame's fault that they have an easy schedule this year. I just think that it would be unfair for them to get a BCS game by beating one bowl eligible team while teams who beat 4 or 5 bowl eligible teams have to sit home. As a matter of fact, this would make the second time that ND went to a bowl game over an 10 - 1 Virginia Tech team whose only loss was to Miami. And funny how everyone stopped talking about Virginia Tech's easy nonconference scheduling when they joined the ACC, which along with the PAC - 10 is one of the media favorites!
Brian said:
posted on November 15, 2005 4:24 PM — 167.6.7.20 — link — abuse?
Why is LSU not in the top toughest schedules? I'll tell you why!!!
Wins over .500 ASU, below .500 Tennesse, 2&7 MS State, and scheduled traditional powerhouses Appalachian State and North Texas. Those don't offset the 3 real teams you have played this year!
Gerald said:
posted on November 15, 2005 5:59 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
Bill Hartigan:
Again with the plodding offenses thing. Let us let the NFL be the judge, and I am not talking about the draft but actual NFL performance. I will be the first to admit, the PAC - 10 has better QBs in the SEC in the NFL, and more of them. But with the new bunch of passing - game oriented head coaches and coordinators in the SEC, that is going to soon change, and starting this year, when 4 SEC QBs are going to be drafted as compared to the PAC - 10's 3.
But at the other skill positions: no contest. Looking at the stats on ESPN.com, the PAC - 10 has only 3 RBs in the top 40, with the highest being #10. The SEC has 8 in the top 25 alone, including #1 and #7. 4 of those 8 played at Auburn, and 2 of those 8 played for Auburn LAST YEAR!
Passcatcher? More of the same. The PAC - 10 has 4 guys among the top 40, including the head and shoulders above the rest Chad Johnson. But the SEC has 7, including the better group of TEs!
I will grant you that there is some good RB talent in the PAC - 10 this year; indeed, better than the SEC's bunch, which only has Kenny Irons and Kenneth Darby over 1000 yards. Cal and USC may have as many 1000 yard rushers as the entire SEC! But the PAC - 10 has a LONG way to go! And I have not seen any upperclassmen SEC WRs that impress me except MAYBE Florida's Chad Jackson (now TE is another matter, as UGA and Auburn have 3 great ones between them!). But things are cyclical!
Matthew said:
posted on November 15, 2005 6:07 PM — 160.36.69.232 — link — abuse?
How is South Florida and Stanford in the top 10. Stanford lost to UC Davis, wtf? I guess UC Davis gets to be considered in the Pac-10 since they beat a Pac(Pathetic) 10 team. Outside of Oregon and USC(Who could beat anyone in country right now) there is no one in that conference. I am going to laugh USC beats UCLA by 40. I hope Texas loses too, so USC gets to finally play a legit team in NC rather then a Big Loser 12 team.
JIM said:
posted on November 15, 2005 6:13 PM — 68.211.13.27 — link — abuse?
Tennessee schedule is straight brutal, I mean not only are they in the SEC but they played Notre Dame. And also what factors in that this strength of schedule doesn't is that all the games with the top 5 opponents - alabama, florida, lsu, notre dame - WERE AWAY!!!!!
matt said:
posted on November 15, 2005 6:45 PM — 66.42.241.107 — link — abuse?
wow, all i have to say is that we beat Ohio State in the shoe, we beat Texas Tech at Tech. o yeah we also finally got over the hump of Oklahoma. Who has ND played away from home. O yeah and its Not are fault we beat everyone on are schedule. Maybe Miami, LSU, ND, and Pen State shouldn't of lost
HOOK EM HORNS
Max said:
posted on November 15, 2005 7:13 PM — 129.116.27.133 — link — abuse?
ND hasn't done anything special this season. The most important thing to look at in making rankings is, "Who have they beat?" I'm pretty sure ND hasn't beaten a current top 25 team this season...might as well put UCLA or Texas Tech #7.
Also, if you don't think Texas could compete with USC or any other top 10 team, you are sadly mistaken. Texas's defense can easily compete with any other defense in the country.
posted on November 15, 2005 9:04 PM — link — abuse?Kevin Donahue said:
Assuming the game does take place, Auburn would host Washington State on Sept 2, 2006 at 7p.
chicago719 said:
posted on November 15, 2005 9:23 PM — 24.12.52.226 — link — abuse?
USC is overrated! ... Texas will crush them. You put any team with a mobile qb that can actually throw (obviously not Cal) ... then USC would lose. They barely beat ND ... and ND is even more overrated than USC. USC has played Hawaii, Arkansas and ND for non conference opponents. Pathetic. And the PAC10 is worse than pathetic ...
I'll have to agree with Gerald ... Auburn would have beat USC last year. See comments about quarterbacks above.Nutriaitch said:
posted on November 15, 2005 11:03 PM — 66.157.56.122 — link — abuse?
How many years in a row does the Big 12 have to get spanked in bowl games before people realize they are the most overrated conference in football? By the way Texas, don't beleive all the hype, Oklahoma was the greatest college team ever two years ago, until they played a real team. Got smoked last year too.
tarheel4life said:
posted on November 15, 2005 11:46 PM — 68.57.48.90 — link — abuse?
Sagarin ratings index schedule strength
Northwestern
Michigan
North Carolina
Ohio State
Purdue
Illinois
Notre Dame
Penn State
Minnesota
Stanfordsoutherncowboy said:
posted on November 15, 2005 11:50 PM — 152.7.5.72 — link — abuse?
How can NC State be up there? Sure they play in the ACC but so do 11 other teams. Their non-conference schedule consisted of Eastern Kentucky, Southern Miss and Mid Tenn State. Come on, there is no way they should be up there!
irishfan said:
posted on November 15, 2005 11:51 PM — 68.249.5.58 — link — abuse?
Bottom line, please find me a school that plays a schedule as tough as ND's year in year out. PLEASE DO TRY, BUT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT...YOU WONT!!! So please quit crying about how easy they have it. The Big East doesn't have one team that is good, Texas hasn't beaten anyone/played anyone that is anywhere near good (ohio st. is overrated), SEC is the best conf. and GA and LSU cant score to save their lives, PAC 10 (USC, cant bash them) ACC, overrated, Miami is good but not great, FSU is to young right now. Big Ten, joke Penn St. will get dominated in whatever BSC bowl they play in. So please quit crying about ND because they do not play any cupcakes like most schools to get their "practice games" in. Look at who they play over the next 5 years and then come talk to me.
TD said:
posted on November 16, 2005 2:11 AM — 68.121.148.18 — link — abuse?
The criticism of Notre Dame on this thread borders on laughable. How many other teams in the country played their first two games on the road? How many teams beat an opponent of the quality of Michigan in a place like Ann Arbor in their second game of the season? Penn State has managed to play all but 3 games at home. Notre Dame, with an entirely new coaching staff, played 4 of its first 5 games on the road. It won 4 out of those 5 games. How is a win, in Ann Arbor, against a team that is currently ranked in the top 25 not a quality win? They had a bad early loss. So did Miami, or are you still impressed with that unraveling FSU team that gave up 35 points to Clemson. ND lost two games by a total of 6 points. One of those was to the undefeated defending national champions. They have been held under 30 points exactly once, in their 17-10 win in Ann Arbor in week 2. Only three teams have held them under 40: Michigan, USC, and Willingham's Huskies who, lost 36-17. Virginia Tech is 8-1 because their non-conference schedule consisted of Ohio and Marshall. In Blacksburg. Which is still tougher than Bama's slate of Middle Tennessee State, Utah St., and USM, all in Tuscaloosa. Anybody who thinks Notre Dame has an easy schedule is just not paying attention.
war eagle 2004 said:
posted on November 16, 2005 2:22 AM — 67.166.240.114 — link — abuse?
hey guys i think this AU and usc crap in going to drag on forever, but just in case you guys think the reason AU got left out is because of their non conference schedule, auburn had clemson and ga tech on their schedule and got droped by both teams.But i dont think it would have mattered someone wanted ou in that game and it wasnt because they thought they were the best team.How come ou hasnt ever had to complain about being left out even though they get drilled every time they play in the nc game.I wonder if has anything to do with the president of the b12 being the president of the bcs.
chris said:
posted on November 16, 2005 7:34 AM — 129.78.228.114 — link — abuse?
You really can't hold teams accountable for weak out of conference scheduals (excpet for obvious cupcakes like Kentucky or Duke (Go Carolina)). These scheduals are made years in advanced, and when a team such as Miami schedules Colorado when they can still "entertain" recruits and keep them coming in, it looks like it should be a better schedule in the future. Can't hold for that.
Brian said:
posted on November 16, 2005 10:16 AM — 167.6.7.20 — link — abuse?
Don't let WarEagle fool anyone. I'm not sure about the Clemson game, but the GA Tech game was a MUTUAL reschedule from 2004 to 2005. (Auburn probably didn't want to lose to them 2 years in a row.) We also saw how GA Tech got crushed by AU this year, as well. Ooops, wait, didn't AU lose that game at home, too? It's a good thing y'all were able to handle Miss St, Ball State, and Western KY. LOL!
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
Gerald said:
posted on November 14, 2005 6:42 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?One team that is not on there? NOTRE DAME! Gee, I wonder why not. Could it be ... THAT THEY HAVE ONLY PLAYED THREE TEAMS WITH A WINNING RECORD, WITH ONE OF THOSE BEING NAVY? Yet everyone has them in their top 25. Hmmm ... now why do you suppose that is? Oh yeah, because they played USC tough. Right? Stuff like that is why no one down south takes that "USC was better than Auburn last year because media experts say so" seriously.