In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
When are stupid people going to realize that having 2 or 3 weak OOC games on a schedule does nothing to actually weaken it if a team plays 7+ top 50 teams and two 2 games against top 5 teams?
This idea that beating 8 teams between 40-70 is more impressive than taking down two giants is ludicrous. What the people making this case don't realize is that the bottom quarter of the PAC 12 is AS IRRELEVANT as North Texas and Youngstown State. It doesn't mean that they're as bad (though in some cases they are), but the fact is that they're close both are firmly in the "decent team should handle with ease" category.
Thankfully the only people looking at the easiest six games on a schedule to determine its worth instead of the toughest 6 games are typically not analysts or voters, but rather Pac 12 homers looking and struggling to find something about which to criticize the SEC and its run of dominance.
A single quality OOC opponent along with an SEC schedule will alone make it a top 30 schedule in most cases. Scheduling WAC teams or major conference bottom feeders is straight up less impressive than ONE top 10 team and 3 cupcakes. It's one test vs. zero tests. No one thinks Minnesota is going to beat USC. So when you're sitting around stroking your **** about how you didn't play any FCS teams, I'd like to remind you that Notre Dame hasn't been relevant in a while but FSU, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Penn State, Michigan, Oregon, West Virginia, Boise, ... have been and recently.
At the end of the day the question is-- who did you beat? And when it's asked, it is referring to the best teams you beat, not the irrelevant many.
You make poor arguments.
Now there is certainly a valid argument that Schedule A is tougher to go undefeated against, while schedule B would be tougher to get bowl eligible against. Though based on the above, that simple concept is way over your head.
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken
Now why would I waste my time talking about teams struggling to get bowl eligible?
Your head was so far up your own ass that you missed the point, Buffalo.
It also seems like poor arguments would be easy to refute. Not even an attempt?
Wasted to much time dealing with low IQ's on the internet already.
The argument becomes circular. Are the teams really top teams or are their rankings boosted by accumulating wins against teams without a pulse? Until teams all have to play the same number of OOC games and have the same number of teams in each conference, it will be impossible to compare SOS.
That's a cop out. The same number of OOC games would do little to ensure "fairness" because teams from different conferences will still be playing entirely different schedules against different teams. It's never going to be perfect, but no system is without flaws.
As it stands now there are plenty of pretty strong clues that give us a great idea who the actual best teams are. They typically go through entire seasons beating the hell out of everyone (except possibly each other), and then they square off against each other late or at the very end of the season and the best team usually wins. Then it gets raided by the NFL draft but somehow finds itself right there near the top the next year.
I do think most people will be happy when we move to the 4 team format because there will be two more teams in the mix and two more games with direct NC implications.
Don't be so selfish with all of that brainpower. I'm having trouble fathoming its vastness.
You have no retort. The "I disagree but can't explain why" move is not usually that popular among the overly gifted. You must be a contrarian. That's how I pegged you from the beginning.
Didn't last year prove that SoS and who you beat didn't matter? Why bother arguing over something that has no impact on anything?
This post was edited by Tom Riddle 23 months ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports