<p>
[quote]
I like watching Texas Tech play just as much as the next guy, but what really blows my mind is their current strength of schedule: Texas Tech (103rd), Penn State (82nd), Oklahoma State (87th) and even Alabama (53rd).</p>
<p>And people say USC's (13th) is weak At least Texas' schedule (24th) has legitimacy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm a little confused how USC's SOS is 13th. They play NOBODY that's any good. Unless, higher SOS is good, in which case I'm a little confused at why UT is so low. I mean, they have beaten their two toughest matchups, so maybe all they have left is OSU, Tech, KU, and the B12 north champ, but still I can't see it being that low.</p>
<p>One thing is that, as far as I can tell, strength-of-schedule is only to date - so we'll see USC's drop a bit and Texas will go up a bit as the rest of the season goes on.</p>
<p>"nobody that's good" is a totally relative thing. USC has played Ohio State (7-1), Oregon State (4-3, but with the 6th hardest schedule themselves), Oregon (5-2), Arizona State (2-4, but with the 4th hardest schedule), Virginia (4-3, 7th hardest schedule), and even Washington State (1-6, 8th hardest). Expect the trend to continue when USC plays Washington (0-6, but number 1 hardest schedule in the country)</p>
<p>Or you can be like Texas Tech and go with FCS Eastern Washington and Massachusetts.</p>
<p>(for the record, USC has never played a FCS or I-AA football team)</p>
<p>No need to. They have Washington and Washington State on their schedules.</p>
<p>And your talk about how hard some of these opponent's schedules are.. those are all relative. Sure Washington and Washington State are going to have "hard" schedules; they're BAD!!</p>
<p>Yes, they're bad, really bad. But that's not my point. Would Washington be 0-6 if they had played Texas Tech's first 4 games? (they'd almost certainly be at least 3-1) Instead, Washington invited BYU and Oklahoma to town.</p>
<p>Plus, the difficulty of the schedule has nothing to do with how good the team is. It's purely a function of who they've played. Texas, Alabama, USC, etc., would all have the #1 hardest schedule if they had played the schedule Washington had.</p>
<p>Finally it's not my opinion, it's Sagarin's opinion - an independent sports statistician whose rankings are one of the "computer polls" used in the official BCS rankings. </p>
<p>Yes, schedule ranking is subjective - but in this case, there's simply no comparison between an "100th ranked" schedule and a "1st ranked" schedule.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sure Washington and Washington State are going to have "hard" schedules; they're BAD!!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Washington's schedule includes out of conference games against BYU and Oklahoma, both of which have been/are ranked in the top 10 this season. As a PAC-10 team, Washington also plays roundtable, facing USC (a top 10 team), Oregon, Arizona State and California, the last three having been ranked within the top 25 at some time within the season. Washington also plays Notre Dame OOC.</p>
<p>That to me is not an easy schedule. In fact, facing three teams that at one point were ranked within the top 10 in the nation is downright hard. </p>
<p>If you look at Washington State, not only do they play USC, Oregon, Arizona State and Cal, they also opened their season with a game against Oklahoma State, the same team that beat Missouri and is currently ranked #7.</p>
<p>Now, the PAC 10 certainly is having a down year. But in all honesty: how much better is playing Coastal Carolina than playing UCLA? How much better is playing Louisiana Monroe than playing Arizona? How much better is playing Chattanooga and Baylor than playing Washington? Answer: it's not. Yet football powerhouses like Oklahoma, LSU and Penn State do it and don't get nearly as much grief as PAC-10 teams, who have to schedule to play each other.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Coach Mike Leach is incredibe and hilarious.
[/quote]
Mike Leach is crazy.</p>
<p>Texas Tech has the tough part of their schedule coming up...Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Oklahoma State...I sense there will be some separation at the top of the rankings among Big XII teams as these games are played.</p>
<p>As for USC/Zona I'm not so deluded as to expect another shutout, but I'm hopeful it'll be a comfortable win.</p>
<p>The only problem with dumping Tedford is that would totally crush any hope of being competitive in the pac-10 in 2009, just while Riley and Best should be hitting their stride (since it seems like Tedford is the only one who understands how Cal's offense is supposed to work... :) )</p>
<p>And he's not a bad coach, per se...while he is good enough to get Cal to a decent record every year, he doesn't seem to be able to go the extra step and get into, at minimum, a BCS at-large berth occasionally.</p>
<p>^ I'm frustrated with that as well...it seems we'll be relegated once again to the Sun or Emerald bowl. Winning the Rose Bowl is the goal.</p>
<p>Tedford is a great coach...he's raised Cal football from the dead - with antiquated facilities to boot. I just think he's stubborn and needs to make a descion on QB so the receivers can work on chemistry. The QB merry-go-round doesn't seem to be working. Give the job to Riley, I say, Longshore is past prime...Riley is the future.</p>
<p>I know I'm not supposed to say it but I'm going to go ahead and say it</p>
<p>Please, please, no Ohio State-USC rematch in the Rose Bowl. USC-Penn State, or USC in the championship game, or USC vs. SEC at-large would be great.</p>
<p>USC in championship game? A lot of wacky things need to happen outside of the Pac-10 first. I didn't think USC is a top-2 team and the Arizona game further confirms that.</p>
<p>still a lot of football left...and Arizona was averaging 40 points per game before USC's defense totally shut them down (if Sanchez hadn't cough up the football, all they would have had was that one field goal)...and if the last 2 years have been any indication, one loss isn't that significant.</p>
<p>But, I was just pointing out one possible outcome (however unlikely) as an alternative to the most likely (USC/Ohio State). And at this point, it is actually more likely than the other two I pointed out (USC/Penn State or USC/SEC at large)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know I'm not supposed to say it but I'm going to go ahead and say it</p>
<p>Please, please, no Ohio State-USC rematch in the Rose Bowl.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LOL jbusc yeah, you probably shouldn't have said it. You know how the Trojans were supposed to beat Oregon State twice, and UCLA in 2006, and Stanford in 2007? Who's to say that they're supposed to beat tOSU in a RB rematch, when the (angry, humiliated) Buckeyes will have Pryor and Beanie Wells this time around? :P</p>
<p>
[quote]
USC in championship game? A lot of wacky things need to happen outside of the Pac-10 first.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Teams that need to lose once more for USC to have a shot at the NCG:
Georgia
Florida
Oklahoma
Penn State</p>
<p>Teams that need to lose twice for USC to have a shot at the NCG:
Alabama
Texas</p>
<p>This is not going to happen. A one-loss USC trumps no undefeated SEC/Big 12/Penn State team for a slot in the title game. A one-loss USC trumps no one-loss SEC/Big 12 team (I can see the BCS preferring USC to Penn State). Their only shot is if six other teams essentially have meltdowns.</p>
<p>And if Oregon State runs the table or the Trojans walk into the Rose Bowl in December facing an especially vicious Rick Neuheisel/Norm Chow combo...</p>
<p>Actually, if Oregon State wins out and goes to the Rose Bowl instead of USC, it would be almost certain (if USC stays one-loss) that USC would be selected as a BCS at-large team and play either the Fiesta Bowl (most likely against Big-12 champ or Big-12 at-large) or Sugar Bowl (most likely against SEC champ or SEC at-large)</p>
<p>I know how unlikely it is for USC to go all the way now. I was pointing out the most likely scenario (USC-Ohio State) and 3 very unlikely scenarios that all would be more favorable.</p>
<p>And frankly, here's the problem with rematches - there's already only 13 games per season. People whine endlessly about how there's no playoff, no conclusive champion, how things are settled by debate instead of on the field. </p>
<p>This is an opportunity to play two top-10 teams in a great matchup. Everyone would have loved to see USC-Georgia last year, instead, we got to see two blowouts of Illinois and Hawaii, but at least it was settled on the field. </p>
<p>USC-Ohio State has already been settled on the field, and will be settled on the field again in 2009 when USC visits Columbus. If USC plays Ohio State on Jan 1, then they will have played 3 times in 1 year, and there will still be debate about how USC stacks up to the Big-12 and/or SEC. That debate can be settled on the field next Jan 1 - if the right matchup is made.</p>
<p>So make USC put up or shut up. If USC doesn't belong in the top-5 then pair them with one of the 3rd, 4th, 5th ranked teams in a BCS bowl and let USC lose.</p>
<p>Otherwise USC is 5-1 in BCS bowls and the rest is just talk.</p>