Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa.Kinzer
Wow. In my defense, I did say "it's different for a non-BCS school." But I still think any school would be crazy to stack up those four teams, which apparently is an imaginary line-up.
And I'm not "completely wrong." I'm just ahead of you... See...The trend over the past 5 years has been to toughen schedules. But coaches like Stoops and Brown have both said it's not worth the risk. I would not be surprised if "big-name" schools back off of the trend.
The truth of the matter is, and please tell me you can't deny this, BCS standings depend a little on SOS but a LOT on pre-season rankings.
And that's something that tougher non-conference schedules may not be able to help...
BTW, I'm a Sooner, not a Longhorn. Ick.
|
LOL sorry I called you a Longhorn. I can only imagine the trauma that might have caused you.
Well you may be right in predicting the future trend, but I don't believe it. Just this week, I heard a couple commentators talk about Cal and the love the computers have for them. Stoopes and Brown may not like it, but they're stuck with it.
Computers are here to stay and each year the college football world will understand them better and better. And the way to be rewarded by the computers is by beating a strong SOS.
Of course final BCS standings rely to some degree on preseason rankings, but unfortunately that's nothing BYU can control, so it's a non-factor either way.
The paradigm for both you as an outsider and to my Cougar brothers here is that everyone's looking at it as an OOC schedule.
It seems murder to line up an OOC schedule of #1, #10, #40, #50 like the 2010 schedule does.
But is it murder to line up a total schedule that goes #1, #10, #30, #40, #50, #50, #60, #70, #80, #80, #100, #110? That's the 2010 schedule, and it's not much different than anybody else. We just have to load up on the OOC to make it work.