wildcats20;573993 wrote:Sagarin has OSU's schedule at 59. Boise's at 73. And TCU at 68.

And which schedule is worse again?

ytownfootball;574003 wrote:well ya, some factual evidence might help here. I Sagarins updated, I mean I know it is but are those updated rankings?

thedynasty1998;574001 wrote:No one cares about the history. You can only look at this season's results.

ytownfootball;574006 wrote:Bullshit. All the Boise nuthuggers point to beating teams years ago as to reasons why they should get the shot.

wildcats20;574005 wrote:As of November 21 at 2:11 AM.

The SCHEDULE ratings represent what the rating would have to be for a
hypothetical team to have a mathematical expectation of winning precisely 50%
of their games against the schedule played by the team in question in the games
that it has played so far. The schedule difficulty of each given game takes
into account the rating of the opponent and the location of the game. This
is the same concept that is used in computing the WIN50% conference ratings.

thedynasty1998;574025 wrote:Again, no one said Boise's schedule is good, it's just ironic when Buckeye fans criticize it.

And sure, OSU's is better, but remove Wisconsin from it, and then look at it? Hard to argue that someone has a better schedule when the one elite team on the schedule is a L.

wildcats20;574033 wrote:Yeah OSU lost to Wisky. But is that worse than beating a team who lost to a 1-AA team? I would rather lose to a top 8 team than have our best win be over a team who lost to James Madison.

lhslep134;574040 wrote:Dynasty you just don't get it. You don't at all.

It's about the grind of the conference schedule. It's not about the fucking spread, are you fucking serious?

How about in 2007, OSU got upset by Illinois....last year it was Purdue.

Upsets happen to the best teams in every single power conference, yet TCU and Boise don't lose in conference...what does that say about their quality of competition? It says that they don't have to prepare week in and week out like other teams such as Auburn, Oregon, etc. Why do those teams have to get up each week and Boise and TCU don't? Because the teams they play are so devoid of talent that it's not even close. At least in power conferences the players who play are generally recruited by each other. No one who plays for any fucking WAC or MWC school outside of Boise, TCU, and Utah would play at any power conference team, even the bottom feeders.

Pure ignorance for someone to think otherwise.

Don't give me some bullshit Sagarin rankings. Those are the same rankings that had a 2 loss Florida team (at the time) at 7th in the country.

lhslep134;574040 wrote: Don't give me some bullshit Sagarin rankings. Those are the same rankings that had a 2 loss Florida team (at the time) at 7th in the country.

thedynasty1998;574053 wrote:
Maybe Boise deserves more credit for not slipping up every year, like some others do (USC and OSU the last 2 seasons).

ytownfootball;574057 wrote:But, but, but I thought you said what happened this year is the only thing that matters?

thank you for proving your earlier question to me.

ytownfootball;574079 wrote:Hey it's your post, I didn't have to try.

lhslep134;574086 wrote:Dynasty you're wrong.


Every single team in the 6 power conferences is better than every piece of shit team in their respective standing in the MWC and WAC. For that reason alone TCU and Boise don't deserve it.

You may disagree that Boise and TCU don't deserve it, but you cannot refute my reasoning. To do so is pure ignorance of the complete shit makeup of the WAC and MWC.

ytownfootball;573995 wrote:Not given the history of their defeated opponents, again, (I think I've said this 3 times) this year has been the exception.

wildcats20;574017 wrote:Yeah, by no means am I trying to say OSU has played a tough schedule. But Boise and TCU have both played WORSE schedules. But OSU's is the one that gets ridiculed. Oh the top 2 teams(Auburn and LSU) in the SEC are 40 and 41, so let's not even start with that.

And Dynasty, I have no idea how his rankings work. Below is what the site lists as Schedule Ratings:

0311sdp;574108 wrote:I think we are all saying kind of the same thing here, 1) Boise State and TCU are both very good teams 2)but we don't know if they are good enough to play in the N/C game because they don't play anyone all season. As for Boise and TCU not slipping up in conference play, it is easier for them not to because the gap between them and the rest of their league is much greater than in the SEC, Big Ten , Big 12 , or PAC 10 conferences. They can play terrible and still most teams in their conference just don't have the horses to compete with them. OSU's schedule admittedly is not what it should be, next season it will be a lot better with the addition of Nebraska, and Colorado instead of a MAC school, also Miami may live up to expectations next season also. With the major conferences looking to expand Boise and TCU need to push to join one of them. (but I really don't think that they want to, it's much easier to cry hey look at me I'm undefeated and it's unfair that you won't let me in the big dance than to actually play and earn your way into the party.

0311sdp;574108 wrote: next season it will be a lot better with the addition of Nebraska, and Colorado instead of a MAC school, also Miami may live up to expectations next season also.