TDDVandy wrote:
Right -- top-tier IAA teams are often better than some of the bottom feeders in the MAC and WAC. I believe Jeff Sagarin had three or four IAA conferences ranked ahead of the Sun Belt last season.
Yeah, I've heard of Sagarins' rankings, and find them to be 'questionable' if not altogether 'biased', in their approach.
In 2003, Delaware (I-AA national champions) defeated Navy 21-17. Navy was 8-5 on the year, losing to Texas Tech in the Houston Bowl 14-38. Navy, obviously wasn't too bad, as evidenced by their 'near' upset of Notre Dame, in S. Bend, IN. I'm not altogether surprised by those games, where a I-AA team plays 'to the level' of their opposition.
Now, as far as the 'bottom-feeders' of the WAC I'd like to know which teams you are referring to. The three 'Sun Belt' additions (Utah St, Idaho, New Mexico St) maybe aren't very good, according to your standard, they can still play 'good' football. Is a 20-0 loss at Arkansas a 'blow-out'? I'm curious. What about Idaho's near 'upset' of Michigan st? I thought Michigan St was lucky to escape with a win, myself (27-17 really didn't reflect how close the game was). As far as New Mexico St goes, they nearly beat New Mexico, last week. Utah was 6-5 last year, which included a win over New Mexico St. (and wins over Missouri, Utah).
So, I take what you say with a grain of salt.
If the teams you suggest are 'bottom' feeders you have to somehow explain how a 4-7 Sun-Belt team (Troy) nearly takes the defending ACC champion (FSU) to the wire. 'beginner's luck'? I doubt it. There are teams in every conference that can play 'outstanding' football.