Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach McGuirk
No, the problem is the same prejudice is not applied when Colorado sucks, or Nebraska sucks or Iowa or Oregon. I am just suppose to buy that other conferences are a gauntlet of bear traps. I mean how many years has Nebraska sucked now? But lets say Nebraska at 3-1 were to win next year against a 4-0 Texas team, and neither team had played anyone of note(even me saying this is a load, since I am just feeding the name recognition bullshit) . Well Nebraska would just be seen as a return to their greatness and Texas would get penalized just a little, with t
never mind, I am done, this whole thing is shit, and I hate typing about it, and the fact that triplet daddy or anyone buys into it just pisses me off that much more.
The whole thing is a sham.
|
I have conceded many times that there are biases toward certain programs and biases toward certain conferences. College football has, and always will be, a sport grounded in a hierarchy founded on assumption.
However, it's absurd for Archaea to try to suggest that SEC schedules are somehow less legitimate than the MWC's because of the SEC's easy non-conference games. Said SEC non-conference games feature Utah State, Wyoming and UNLV.
It's absurd for him to try to suggest that the MWC SOS is not actually any weaker than Auburn's SOS, it's only "perceived" as such.
Also absurd is his argument that "it should be about winning period," regardless of caliber of competition. That's even sillier. By that logic we should just crown the undefeated DIII team the champion of all of college football.