CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

The question was posed as to how scheduling Western Kentucky is different than scheduling Kent State, San Jose State, or Akron. The obvious difference is the inherent disadvantage of 1-AA schools in the number of players on full scholarship. KSU, SJU, and Akron all have the same number of players o...

2004 was the banner year for the Sun Belt. They've step back in remission. Troy was at least competative prior to 2005 and North Texas was actually a decent team who fell far down. The Sun Belt in 2005 was a matter of which teams weren't the worst, not which were the best. I've been pulling for the ...

I don't really blame SEC schools for scheduling teams like the 4 I listed above, the SEC schedule, like you said, is tedious to play through. Even the bottom feeders could possibly give you a slight battle and it can sometimes be a struggle. There are usually 4 or 5 super good teams that you have t...

With 3-7 more games to schedule (no to mention possible changes). Statistics of this years non-conference opponents based on where they finished last year: Top 10 teams: Independent 6 CUSA 6 Big Ten 5 Big 12 5 ACC 5 Sun Belt 4 PAC-10 4 MAC 4 WAC 2 SEC 2 Big East 2 MWC 1 Ranked teams: CUSA 15 Sun Bel...

I dont' recall ever saying they were 'good' I simply said the conference as a whole would appear to be improving, and I think that's a fair statement, in general. Sun Belt has only been around 5 years, in I-A, although it would appear it's existed in some fashion for a considerable period of time i...

Sun Belt maybe 'sucks' but Arkansas St, wasn't that bad a team, neither for that matter was Louisiana Lafayette. I think the Sun Belt could surprise some people, next year. They would appear to be on the 'rise' competitively, since N. Texas wasn't the #1. What makes you think Arkansas State is good...

As far as Akron is concerned, it still ties into my argument that your conference is what matters most. I commend them for being bold, in scheduling, but that will more likely be a reason for the BCS to not take them, than to take them. 3/4 games are road games. They likely scheduled N. Texas so th...

What it does, I believe is assign a relative 'score' to each win. Computer rankings are a dime a dozen. How much you give to a "relative" score differs from person to person. Another thing it does is 'discard' games against I-AA competition. Again, that's fair, because as in the case of Texas Tech,...

Sun Belt because they all suck.

colorado_loves_football wrote:

Ktffan wrote:Warning. The information there is not complete

Ktffan, I'm not sure if you are correct about that, unless you mean that it doesn't go 'beyond' 1960. I think the information is as complete as it can be.

The information there doesn't include whole team histories.

colorado_loves_football wrote: According to 'his' formula, they were #32. That would imply that they maybe weren't as competitive as I am giving them credit for, so I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong.

It could also imply that his formula is garbage, for which there is some evidence to indicate.

Spence wrote:CFL, cool site. Always nice to find a new stat. site.

Warning. The information there is not complete.

My point with the % was that they are likely as competitive as they were in the '50s. The competition they played back then was far better than what they are playing now. You might be correct, but I found a place where in general the Mountain West Confernece is viewed fairly favorably. http://mcube...

Tell me how Pittsburgh wasn't a deserving representative to the BCS, I'm interested, I think you are simply modifying your position to the results. I thought Pittsburgh was a worthy representative, especially after they beat both W. Virginia and Boston College. They needed 'help' obviously, from Sy...

colorado_loves_football wrote:My point with the % was that they are likely as competitive as they were in the '50s.

The competition they played back then was far better than what they are playing now.