[jay santos]

Originally Posted by minn_stat

Although this is the perception, and it is technically correct, I haave a couple of issues with it.

One, USC is one of the few teams that actually plays more than one OOC BCS team each year. Look at Ohio State's or Nebraska's schedule for the alternative.

And while BCS technically refers to a team in one of six conferences, it is also often used to infer that a team has at least some minimal level of ability, which doesn't apply to some teams in those six conferences (Baylor and Minnesota come immediately to mind), while it does apply to some teams not in those conferences (Utah and Boise State, for example).

Take Ohio State, for example. This year, they played 9 BCS teams. More meaningful in real terms, though, they played NO top-notch teams, one good team (Illinois), three solid teams (Michigan, Wisconsin, and Penn State), two decent teams (Michigan State and Purdue), two poor teams (Washington and Northwestern), and four bad teams (Minnesota, Youngstown State, Akron, and Kent State).

By comparison, BYU (regular season) played only 2 BCS teams. But more meaningfully, they played NO top-notch teams, NO good teams, three solid teams (UCLA, Air Force, Utah), four decent teams (Arizona, Tulsa, New Mexico, TCU), one poor team (Wyoming), and four bad teams (UNLV, Eastern Washington, Colorado State, SDSU). That's plus one for OSU with good teams, plus two for BYU with decent teams, and OSU played one more poor team.

So we really played a schedule very comparable to OSU's, but they played 9 BCS teams to our 2 BCS teams, which sounds a lot worse.

I realize that to some degree, your argument follows the common perception, but the perception will never change when those who know better and have a stake in changing the perception to better match reality - CGers and the like - perpetuate the myth.

(We could quibble over where I have placed a few of these teams, but depending on the year, I basically consider the top 5-10 teams to be top-notch, good teams to be up to about 20-25, solid teams to be up to about 40-45, decent teams to be up to about 65-70, poor to be up to about 90-95, and bad to be the rest.)

I agree with what you're saying.

BYU and OSU's schedule this year was very similar, and rated that way by my model and other computer models.

But a few more comments.

1. Big 10 was extraordinarily weak this year in the OOC (though they seem to be making up for it a little in bowls).
2. OSU played non D1AA, Kent State, and Akron to get to where they are--weak by all standards and they've gotten hammered for it in the media.
3. Of the major contenders, OSU had the worst schedule by far (except for Kansas), and they would have been penalized for it, if not for the crazy year of everyone losing at the top.
4. MWC was tougher than usual this year.
5. BYU played two BCS and a bowl team for 3 of 4 OOC. I consider that a reasonable approach (though still weaker than I'd like). Bronco wants to dumb it down from there. He feels he is saddled down with two BCS teams a year through 2011. He believes an OOC schedule of two average BCS schools + Utah State to be so tough he needs to balance with Utah State. That will put us much lower than this year's SOS and way below Ohio State's SOS, which already was freakishly low for a perrenial top 20 team (which is what we want to become).