Spence wrote:Western Kentucky or no other 1-AA would beat a D-1 conference champ. The MAC doesn't get the respect they deserve for playing top level competition. the MAC could go the route of other conferences and schedule to make their win-loss record good. They don't do that, they make the effort to play top level OAK competition and should be commended for it.
I know they have taken their lumps in a lot of those games, but they have also won some and played a lot of them tight. There is more of a difference in 1-AA and D-1 then there is between the mid majors and the majors. In my opinion the MAC is making great strides in trying to become competitive with the top level talent in CFB.
I hear people say that a team like (for example 2004 USC) could beat (insert bad NFL team here). It isn't true. The worst NFL team would kill the best college football team. It wouldn't be close. While the talent level between D-1 and D-1AA isn't as wide as NFL to D-1 there is a difference in team talent. There aren't enough guys that fall through the cracks to make very many teams competitive. The exception being a team like Marshall a few years ago, but their top guys were guys who would have been D-1 had they not had bad reputations.
No one is going to confuse the MAC with the SEC, but they are head a shoulders better then any 1AA conference.
Not sure if you are aware but W. Kentucky is scheduled to make the 'jump' to I-A I think beginning in 2007. They will be a Sun Belt addition. I don't know why we are comparing I-A to I-AA I think it's like comparing apples to oranges. I'm sure there are some really good I-AA schools, and I'm sure the 'best' could play against some of the 'worst' I-A schools, and likely win. There might even be a division II school that could compete against a bad I-A school. And we aren't talking about the pros. I am not convinced that a good I-A school couldn't beat a bad pro team. The reason why is so much of what determines a team's success is their coaching. I think the Houston Texans of last year likely lose to Texas, but that's just my opinion. I'm hoping Vince Young goes to Houston, they need a QB.
Now, as far as the information posted, I would like to make a few comments if that's ok. First of all you are all jumping to conclusions, far too early about how 'weak' the major conferneces are scheduling teams.
I don't agree with that at all. What they are likely doing, is allowing for more competitive games against teams that aren't part of a 'traditional' BCS conferneces. That explains the disparity between BCS games as applied to the 'lesser' conferences, and the 'major' ones. It's not that the major conferences are being 'soft'. They likely aren't. They are, however 'padding' their schedules, at home, I don't particular like that aspect, but by-and-large, all conferences are scheduling competitive games, no exceptions.
This would appear, on the surface, anyway, to address Spence's argument that a team should schedule competitive OOC games. My interpretation is that they are! You just aren't recognizing it, because you aren't factoring in that the major confernces schedules are already 'competitive' by their nature (being major conferences). So, if they are playing ranked OOC opponents, that's additional games 'non-conference' they are playing. They shouldn't be playing harder competition than say the Sun Belt, OOC. Every Sun Belt conference game is against a 'non-BCS' opponent, same for C-USA, MWC, WAC, and MAC. In other words, all conferences are scheduling competitive games.
If it weren't that way, then there would be a conference that 'stood-out' as being a patsy, and I don't see one, myself, unless it's the MWC, but they make up a lot of ground in the winning % department. Apples and oranges, I guess, but I think it's a reflection of how competitive they are.
