Quote:
Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon
I have conceded many times that there are biases toward certain programs and biases toward certain conferences. College football has, and always will be, a sport grounded in a hierarchy founded on assumption.
However, it's absurd for Archaea to try to suggest that SEC schedules are somehow less legitimate than the MWC's because of the SEC's easy non-conference games. Said SEC non-conference games feature Utah State, Wyoming and UNLV.
It's absurd for him to try to suggest that the MWC SOS is not actually any weaker than Auburn's SOS, it's only "perceived" as such.
Also absurd is his argument that "it should be about winning period," regardless of caliber of competition. That's even sillier. By that logic we should just crown the undefeated DIII team the champion of all of college football.
|
You misunderstand.
I would not equate the schedules as our weak teams are very weak often, due to a lack of money, and demographics.
What I am saying is that I'm not in favor within the sport of college football of a total meritocracy if those that have shirk their responsibility to us the football fans to provide the most entertaining games week in and week out.
Teams that voluntarily seek out great intersectional games should be rewarded so that we the fans can have more of them. Do I want to see Georgia play some penny ass D2 team, or USC or OU?
So I believe BCS conference teams should be penalized for wimping out, not maximizing the use of their resources by giving us the best games possible. I know they are gaming the system and so is BYU now, a fact I hate.